-Caveat Lector- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:30:42 -0700 (PDT) From: James DeMeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: *OBRL_News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OBRL - Is Your Refrigerator Radioactive?? Recycling Radioactive Waste From: OBRL-News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:- Is Your Refrigerator Radioactive?? "Recycling" Radioactive Waste Orgone Biophysical Research Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/index.htm Forwarded News Item Please copy and distribute to other interested individuals and groups ********** Submitted by Ali James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Is Your Refrigerator Radioactive?? "Recycling" Radioactive Waste Nuclear waste may be used in household products The Independent, UK, 28/4/97, p6. Brussels has cleared the way for radioactive nuclear waste to be used in recycled consumer goods such as glass, plastics and metals. A European Commission directive will allow very low levels of radioactive substances to be handled without reporting or an authorisation licence. The move was called "lunacy" by environmentalists who said there was no certainty that even the smallest quantities of radioactive material were safe. The new Euratom directive will permit tiny quantities of the bone-seeking isotope Strontium-90, and 300 other radioactive isotopes, including Plutonium 239 and Caesium 137 to be recycled with other waste. Dr Chris Busby, author of 'Wings of Death' which highlights the dangers of low-level radiation from the nuclear industry, said that the new thresholds were "dangerously high" and "could allow huge amounts of radioactive waste to be diluted and disposed of by this route". Seemingly acknowledging the dangers, the directive forbids the addition of radioactive substances in foodstuffs, toys, personal ornaments or cosmetics. But other forms of disposal, including recycling into household goods, are permitted without authorisation if the quantities are below the new given levels. Augustin Janssens, of the EC radiation protection unit, agreed that there was no safe level of radiation but said it was not practical to regulate for very low levels. The directive was adopted by the EU last summer, and member states are due to transpose it into their national law by 2000. In Britain, the use, handling and disposal of even tiny amounts of radioactive substances requires authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Any change would require new legislation passed in Westminster. Britain's National Radiological Protection Board was involved with the EC in drawing up the new radioactive "exemption levels". Dr John Cooper, head of the NRPB's environmental assessments department, said they had agreed on levels for some 300 isotopes at which the risks to people were "trivial". He said it would not be practical to impose regulations on university and hospital laboratories which might handle tiny quantities of radioactive materials. Dr Busby has produced new evidence that children living close to nuclear sites are at risk from leukaemia caused by exposure to low level radiation. The link has been made in a statistical analysis of mortality rates among children under the age of 15 living in the south Midlands. The childhood leukaemia mortality rate in South Oxford, which is close to the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, is nearly two and a half times the national average. In Newbury, which is near to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, the figure is almost double the national rate. The AWE said its research showed the impact of the site on the local environment was "negligible". It said: "We cannot see any link between our operations and the [incidence] of cancer." ++++++++++ Blewbury Environmental Research Group Wendy MacLeod-Gilford & Mick Gilford, MA(Cantab), MSc, DIC Lesmarie, Bessels Way, Blewbury, Oxon. OX11 9NN (Tel+Fax: 01235 850711) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 21 June 1999 The Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher, MP Secretary of State for the Environment Eland House, Bressenden Place London, SW1 5DU Dear Mr Meacher EEC Directive 96/29/Euratom We are very concerned about the possibility that the UK Government intend to implement the EEC Directive 96/29/Euratom using the suggested OEXEMPTION' values contained in the Directive. The present limit for free release of radioactive waste in the UK is 0.4 Bq/g but the proposed exemption limits are up to 2.5 million times this figure for some radioactive substances. Already landfill sites and incinerators receive large quantities of radioactive waste and this has resulted in radioactive leachate leaking from the tips and also the permitted radioactive discharges to air and water from incinerators. Unknown amounts of radioactive waste containing tritium and other radionuclides are dumped into landfill sites or incinerated and local populations have no knowledge of the risk to health when living close by although there is growing evidence of excess cancers and birth defects in these populations. I have attended lectures and seminars given by the nuclear industry about the cost of decommissioning nuclear sites and the theme has been the sheer volume of contaminated waste and the cost of disposing of it under the present levels of exemption i.e. 0.4 Bq/g. The nuclear industry, world-wide and NRPB have spent years drafting and working on the present Directive with the prime aim of saving money. The IAEA have produced a report which estimates what dose the public and workers will receive when these new exemption limits are adopted by member states. They have even worked out the dose after the consumer goods have been manufactured, used and then recycled! Goods include refrigerators, cars, cooking utensils, buildings, car parks, road surfaces etc. Doses have been calculated for people handling the contaminated waste in smelting works, people living down wind of the smelters, people making goods out of the recycled but contaminated waste.(0) At present steel etc. contaminated by tritium has to be decontaminated by the nuclear industry at great cost before it can be used for recycling but even so a certain amount of radioactivity remains in the steel etc which will end up in the goods manufactured for domestic use. Some of the steel has a specific activity up to 100 Bq/g before decontamination and in a lecture given by S C Gordelier he was pleased to state that "The proposed free release level for steel in the EU directive is 10^6 Bq/g!" and "Development in the field of international standards for de minimis and final site clearance is promising and will be of considerable assistance to practitioners.(1) In other words the nuclear industry (and the Government who own many nuclear sites) cannot wait for the new relaxed de minimis limits to be adopted! Plutonium contamination is world-wide as a result of atmospheric weapons testing and levels of plutonium both on and around nuclear sites is up to 1.5 million times the mean level for weapons testing fallout: i.e. fallout levels are between 0.02 - 0.7 Bq/kg. Levels on the AWE Aldermaston site are up to 500,000 Bq/kg and off site up to 15,000 Bq/kg. Levels around Sellafield, in the Ravenglass estuary, are up to 106,000 Bq/kg. Levels of Plutonium in silt in the river Thames at Pangbourne up to 5,460 Bq/kg (adjacent to the Aldermaston discharge pipe). Everybody in the world carries a body burden of plutonium from bomb fall-out and people working and living on and near nuclear sites carry much higher body burdens. Plutonium, which is an alpha emitter, if ingested or inhaled becomes assimilated into the whole body but has a tendency to accumulate at higher levels in the lungs, liver and tracheobronchial lymph nodes. Everybody is excreting a certain amount of Plutonium via urine and faeces and North London school children excrete approximately 1 microBequerel/day in urine.(See attached report (2)) The EEC Directive proposes higher levels of permitted plutonium to be released without further monitoring to be recycled into consumer goods or to be dumped or incinerated. This will lead to an even higher exposure to the general population without their knowledge and without any monitoring and will only add to the existing radiological pollution and enhance the health hazard. The new exemptions levels for Tritium would lead to a massive increase in radioactive tritium around nuclear sites, factories, laboratories and hospitals using tritium and in consumer products containing tritium (which eventually end up in landfill sites and in the emissions from these sites, both aerial and liquid). The dangers from tritium are not acknowledged by the NRPB even though tritium gets incorporated into every part of the body and damages the DNA. Tritium has been linked to birth defects and cancers in those living near landfills and nuclear sites and also in nuclear workers. Naturally occurring tritium in rainwater is between 0.6 and 2.4 Bq/l but levels of up to 2,400 Bq/l have been measured in rainwater on the UKAEA site at Harwell. Levels of naturally occurring tritium in groundwater prior to atmospheric bomb testing were between 0.24 and 0.48 Bq/l but levels in groundwater underneath the UKAEA Harwell site are 1,600 Bq/l and 2,400 Bq/l underneath the AWE Aldermaston site. Levels of tritium in landfill leachate in UK up to 4,800 Bq/l. The new relaxed exemption levels for tritium would lead to a massive additional contamination of air, water, food and people. The role of the NRPB in this Directive and their direct connection with the UKAEA Site at Harwell and as the UK's radiological advisors is questionable. They have already relaxed their Generalised Derived Limits for contamination by between 3 and 5 times for Plutonium and Caesium 137 and issued a report on remediation of contaminated land. This enables contaminated sites to be left with more plutonium contamination before site remediation needs to take place and leves more radionuclides after remediation. This relaxation has taken place as more and more contamination is being discovered during decommissioning and site surveys! There is no GDL for tritium but a figure of 90,000 Bq/kg has been used for river water and silt and 3,000,000 Bq/kg for fish by UKAEA Harwell. With regard to the existing exemption levels of 0.4 Bq/g for all radionuclides I would point out that accidents have already happened with high levels of radioactivity being sent for smelting or incineration. In 1982 - 84 recycled metal contaminated with very high levels of Cobalt 60 was used in the construction of apartment blocks in Taipei and this resulted in very high radiation doses being received by the occupants of these homes! Once the floodgate of contaminated metal and concrete is opened using the new exemption limits these situations will occur more frequently and there will be no monitoring to discover where and who is being contaminated. (Report enclosed (3)). The nuclear industry have been using the dilute and disperse argument to dispose of radioactive waste for the last 50 years and already we have the situation of major contamination underneath and around all nuclear sites and all landfill sites receiving de minimis radioactive waste. All soil, water, air, plants, animals, fish and people are already contaminated with a cocktail of radionuclides from bomb fall-out. The new exemption limits will be applied to radioactive discharges leading to even higher local contamination. We urge the Government to ban all recycling of radioactively contaminated material, even at the existing 0.4 Bq/g, let alone the proposed new relaxed exemption levels. If the existing 0.4 Bq/g is retained then the recycled material should be treated and reused by the nuclear industry on their existing contaminated sites and not made available for free release. In allowing the continued practice of dilute and disperse many people are receiving, and will receive, unknown extra doses of radiation, including internal doses. Radioactive waste is already mixed with non-radioactive waste to enable dumping in landfills and incineration. The present NRPB radiation risk paradigm is based on the survivors of Hiroshima and the studies, which were only commenced some 5 years after the initial exposure, are seriously flawed and do not take into account an accumulating body burden of radionuclides such as Plutonium or Tritium and no account is taken of the constant internal radiological damage from particles of plutonium which, once lodged in body organs, remains there until death with only a small amount being excreted during the person's lifetime. The effect of external irradiation from gamma rays cannot be the same as a constant irradition of the body cells from within and there is growing evidence that a single alpha particle will either cause cell death or cell damage and can even affect adjacent cells.(4) The concept of Absorbed dose is seriously flawed as a particle of plutonium lodged permanently in lung tissue means that a very small volume of tissue only a few thousandths of a millimetre across will receive all the radiation but the NRPB average the dose as if it affects the entire lung or the whole body. May we remind the UK Government that we have a world-wide pandemic of cancer and immune system disorders and that the rise of cancers can be linked to the emergence of the nuclear age, especially atmospheric weapons testing and radiation accidents such as Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Childhood cancers and birth-defects have also been linked to medical X-rays and cancers in air-crews are also well documented. Also no account is taken of the synergistic effects of these mutagenic and carcinogenic substances once inside the body.(5) Everybody also has a body burden of toxic substances such as Lindane,DDT, PCBs, HCBs, dioxins etc. For all of these reasons we urge the UK Government to resist any pressure from the nuclear establishment to relax the exemption levels for any radiactive substances both for recycling, dumping or site remediation. Plutonium does not disappear once it is made and released into the environment it just gets blown around or redistributed from sea to land or from land into streams and rivers. Plutonium particles get constantly resuspended during ploughing, digging, construction or demolition and during dry weather conditions. It is in us and our food, air and water. We do not need any more unknown pathways for exposure to these man-made substances especially from living in our homes or using consumer products (fridges, cars, cooking utensils, food cans), or even from paths, roads or recreation grounds! The UK Government should also be aware that these exemption levels will be applied to the workplace as well as de minimis waste and this will mean exposure of 1,000,000,000 Bq/kg of Tritium instead of the existing 400 Bq/kg although tritium was not mentioned in the HSC consultative document "Proposals for revised Ionising Rdiations Regultions and Approved Code of Practice" 2/98. The same applies to all of the other radionuclides. Yours sincerely Wendy MacLeod-Gilford (Mrs) Encs. (0) Application of Exemption Principles to the Recycle and Reuse of Materials from Nuclear Facilities, IAEA Safety Series No. 111-P-1.1 1992. (1) S G Gordelier (Magnox Electric plc Berkeley, Glos) BNES/BNIF Nuclear Congress, London 4 - 5 December 1996 & Nuclear Energy 36, No. 3 June 1997 pp 185-195. (2) Plutonium Pollution - The Legacy of the Nuclear Age Wendy MacLeod-Gilford, 4 Feb. 1999. (3) Dose Reconstuction for residents living in 60Co-contaminated rebar buildings by CJ Tung et al, Health Phyics Vol. 74, No. 6 June 1998. (4) Intercellular Communication is Involved in the Bystander Regulation of Gene Expression in Human Cells Exposed to Very Low Fluences of Alpha Particles by Edouard I Assam et al, Dept. of Cancer Cell Biology, Laboratory of Radiobiology, Harvard School o f Public Health, Boston, Mass., Radiation Research 150, 1998 pp497-504. (See also ref. list in Plutonium paper (2)). (5) See (4) above and also An Analytical approach to the comparison of chemical and radiation hazards to man by H P Leehouts et al, Rad. Prot. a systematic approach to sfety, Vol. 2, Proc. of 5th International Congress of International Radiation Protection Soc. Jerusalem, March 1980. (6) All other figures come from AWE Aldermaston Annual Radiation Monitoring Reports, UKAEA Harwell Annual Radiation Monitoring Reports, and reports produced by the nuclear industry, NRPB or the IAEA. The landfill figures for tritium come from a report by H D Robinson, Aspinwall & Co. Jn. CIWEM 1996 10 Dec. pp 391-397 "Tritium levels in leachates and condensates from domestic wastes in landfill sites". The background levels of naturally occurring tritium come from "Groundwater" by R A Freeze and J A Cherry 1979 pub. Prentice-Hall NJ, ISBN 0-13-365312-9. ......................................................... Blewbury Environmental Research Group Wendy MacLeod-Gilford & Mick Gilford, MA(Cantab), MSc, DIC __ __ __ __ Lesmarie, Bessels Way, Blewbury |_) |_ |_) | _ Oxon. OX11 9NN, UK |_) |_ |\ |_| Tel+Fax: 01235 850711 \ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/berg ........................................................ ********** OBRL News is a product of the non-profit Orgone Biophysical Research Lab Greensprings Research and Educational Center PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/index.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Building upon the discoveries of the late, great natural scientist, Dr. Wilhelm Reich To subscribe to OBRL-News, send the message: subscribe obrl-news to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, or change to a new email address, firstly: unsubscribe obrl-news <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the same address above. Then re-subscribe with your new address. subscribe obrl-news <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
