TL: CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL SO: Greenpeace Canada (GP) DT: 1991 Keywords: greenpeace reports canada nuclear power radiation standards failures human health risks safety problems aecl gp / Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................i 1. Introduction.................................................1 2. Three New Reports............................................2 3. Other Studies................................................5 4. Health Dangers...............................................5 5. The AECB's Radiation Standards - a Public Disgrace...........7 6. Conclusions..................................................9 Appendices.....................................................10 Annex 1 - Genetic Risk Of Radiation Calculated From Gardner's Figures....................................10 Annex 2 - Canada's Radiation Limits............................11 Further Reading (in chronological order).......................14 Conversion Between Radiological Units..........................14 References.....................................................15 [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 2) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 Executive Summary In recent months, three major reports have revolutionised our understanding of radiation's dangers: - First, the prestigious US science body, the National Academy of Sciences published new risk estimates for radiation which were 8 times more dangerous than previously believed. - Second, the world authority on radiation, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, recommended major improvements in the limits to which the public and workers could be exposed. - Third, the Gardner report exploded in the UK indicating that nuclear workers exposed to small amounts of radiation before they conceived children were 6 to 8 times more likely to father leukaemic children. Canada's radiation authority- the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) - has not acknowledged these reports and has stated it does not intend to act quickly to introduce tighter limits. Stricter limits would impose costs on Canada's nuclear industries. Many Canadian radiation workers are exposed to levels higher than those implicated in the new reports. Canadian studies are now beginning to show high levels of birth defects and childhood leukemias near nuclear plants. Our radiation limits are amongst the worst in the developed world. Planned AECB regulations will entrench these limits. Canada is the world's largest exporter of uranium and the world's largest producer of tritium which can be used in nuclear warheads. It remains a major promoter of nuclear power, radionuclides and irradiation technologies throughout the world. The federal government and officials at the AECB and the federal Health & Welfare Department support nuclear developments. Ontario Hydro is one of the most nuclearised utilities in the world with 50%, shortly 60%, of its electricity coming from nuclear power. Ontario Hydro, which has requested permission to build another 10 reactors, is the only utility in North America seriously proposing more nuclear reactors. Many Ontario Government Departments, especially the Ministries of Labour and Health, are pro-nuclear in outlook. Canada's poor official attitudes to radiation safety and its poor standards are the direct result of Canada's heavy involvement in the nuclear business. Doctors and other medical professionals are urged to discuss this radiation scandal within their own associations and to write to the relevant Government ministries. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 3) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 1. Introduction Radiation isn't an easy subject to tackle. You can't see it, hear it, feel it, or smell it. Its lethal effects, such as cancer, often take decades to appear. Such cancers are often buried in the noise of other cancers and can be difficult to detect. Detection usually requires population studies to be interpreted by epidemiologists, statisticians and radiation biologists. A good grasp of nuclear physics, biology, epidemiology and statistics is needed to get to grips with the bland assurances and often biased assumptions used by the radiation experts employed by the nuclear industry and the government. These problems pale in comparison to the political difficulties involved in gaining official recognition of radiation's dangers, as these will involve increased safety costs for the nuclear power industry and the uranium mining industry, both very powerful in Canada. As a result, the Government's response to the recent alarming reports of increased radiation dangers has been to hear no evil, see no evil, and above all speak no evil. Radiation is rarely discussed in Canada. In contrast, it is hotly debated in medical and scientific circles in the US, the UK, and the USSR. In these countries, the alarming new reports of radiation risks, and the fresh data on the increasing scale of the Chernobyl disaster, have resulted in population studies amongst the public and radiation workers to ascertain the real scale of cancer deaths and suffering caused by radiation exposure. Little comparable research is being carried out here. Even before these new reports, our radiation standards were, and are, among the worst in the developed world. If this situation is allowed to continue, in the future, Canada could experience an epidemic of radiation-induced cancers both in the public and among workers exposed to radiation. The disturbing reality is that we won't know for sure, because the Canadian Government is not carrying out the dose measurements, the base-line studies, and the epidemiological studies to find out. This is a scandal. This report has been prepared by Greenpeace to alert health professionals and to ask them to write to the Government about this scandal. In Greenpeace's view, the Government should be pressed to stop its heavy promotion of the nuclear industry and to tell Canadians about the real dangers of radiation. Readers who wish copies of the official reports quoted in this pamphlet should write to the Greenpeace national office in Toronto (address at front). Readers who would like to learn more are referred to the further reading section at the end of the pamphlet. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 4) 2. CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 Three New Reports Recently, three authoritative reports have revolutionised the world's thinking on radiation; the upshot is that radiation is eight times more dangerous than previously believed. This accumulating evidence means that uranium mining, nuclear power operations, nuclear wastes, and radioactive isotopes are all many times more dangerous than was thought in the past. The studies multiply by at least eight, the estimated number of cancer deaths expected to" occur in the future among radiation workers and those exposed to radiation. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 5) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 Beir V Report, During the last weeks of 1989, the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences published its fifth report(1) called BEIR V. The report showed that radiation was much more dangerous than previous estimates, and it confirmed earlier predictions that there was no safe level of radiation. In particular, the report estimated that the lifetime risk of fatal cancers due to radiation had increased to 8% per Sievert (a measure of radiation equal to 100 rem in old radiation units). This represents an eightfold increase in the 1977 risk estimate of 1 % per Sievert(Sv) used to establish the current limits for exposure to radiation. The BEIR V Committee, which was set up at the request of the US President's science advisor's office, surprised many US experts by the magnitude of the increase in its risk estimates. In reality they merely confirmed what many scientists from outside the nuclear industry had been saying for many years. Following the report's publication, the Chair of the BEIR V Committee, Arthur Upton, said "I think there will be some revision [of Government radiation limits. Regulators] live in a glass house ... and the public is watching, so I expect them to trim their sails in a way that is responsive".(2) At the same press conference, the President of the US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Warren Sinclair, stated that the current limits were very likely to be reduced because of the new report. He added that "The current maximum exposure nuclear workers may get in a year is 5 REM [50 mSv]. This may now have to be reduced to 1 or 2 REM (10 or 20 mSv)."(3) [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 6) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 ICRP Draft Recommendations On February 16,1990, the International Commission On Radiological Protection (ICRP), whose limits are recognised by many governments, issued a lengthy draft report(4) which also found that total radiation risks had increased from its 1977 estimate of 1% to 7.5% per Sv. It went on to recommend a major reduction in the worker limit and tightened conditions for the public limit. In particular, it proposed that its occupational limit, which Canada has observed in the past, be reduced from 50 milliSieverts (mSv) a year to an average of 20 mSv per year. For the public, the conditions on the existing ICRP limit of 1 mSv were tightened. See Table 1 for Canada's limits. These recommendations are to be discussed by the ICRP during a number of meetings in 1990 and implemented in 1991. The ICRP report was issued the day before the formal publication of the Gardner report (see below). However after the Gardner report was published, the ICRP's scientific Secretary, Hylton Smith, said the ICRP draft would have to. be reconsidered in the light of Gardner's alarming findings.(5) [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 7) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 Gardner Report On February 17 1990, the authoritative British Medical Journal published(6) the most explosive of the studies; this pointed to the conclusion that radiation workers exposed to as little as 10 mSv (1 rem) in the 6 months before they conceived were 6 to 8 times more likely to father leukaemic children than if they had received no radiation exposure at work. Canada's legal limit for workers is more than 3 times this amount. The Government-sponsored research was conducted by a team from Britain's Medical Research Council, headed by Professor Martin Gardner. an environmental epidemiologist, and took five years to complete. The report was hailed as a model of research in a number of editorials in the scientific press. The case-controlled study examined various theories for the high number of leukemias and other cancers found near the UK's Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. It examined the possibilities that mothers had received X-rays when pregnant, that viral infection was present during pregnancy, that children had been playing on beaches or fells during radioactive discharges, that food contaminated with radioactivity had been eaten, and that radioactive dust particles were brought into the home. However, in the end, the key factor which had a statistical association with the observed cancers was the occupation of the father. The report stated "The raised incidence of leukaemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma among children near Sellafield was associated with paternal employment and recorded whole body penetrating radiation during work at the plant before conception."(6) It is important to note that this correlation does not prove causation, and that the numbers of cancers studied are low - 74 in the whole study and 12 in the vital genetic risk area. Nevertheless, as stated by the editor of the leading science journal, Nature, "the reported association is bound to elevate the status of the connection from that of an untested hypothesis to that of a presumptive mechanism"(7). The report caused a public furor in the UK, attracted banner headlines and editorials hostile to nuclear power in most UK major newspapers, resulted in an emergency debate in the UK Parliament, and the rushed commissioning of at least six further studies on the disturbing results. The UK Health Minister stated(8) in the House of Commons "When you look at acceptable costs in the [nuclear] industry, leukaemia is not an acceptable cost." A number of eminent international scientific periodicals have now, commented on the seriousness of the findings and specifically on their international implications and on the need for governments to tighten exposure limits.(9) Most UK health bodies with any connection to radiation are now carrying out further research into the new dangers or they are helping others to do so. In March, the UK Government's Committee On Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment agreed with Gardner's main conclusions and in response the UK Government accelerated their studies.(10) In April, the UK nuclear industry sent written warnings of these genetic dangers of radiation to its employees(11). UK unions have reacted with alarm to the Gardner findings and are now demanding immediate reductions in the UK limits which are already tighter than Canadian limits.(12) In the US, the Gardner report has provoked a major debate among radiation experts, with scientists from a number of US health authorities agreeing that the findings are significant and worrying (13). In Canada,the study received little attention until Greenpeace sent copies to all the major media outlets. The Federal health authorities responsible for protecting the public and workers from radiation dangers were initially ignorant of these developments. When these were brought to their attention by Greenpeace, they refused to comment or to issue any advice. On a number of occasions (14). AECB officials have stated that there is no need to reduce the limits quickly, even following the Gardner report. Gardner-Some Worrying Calculations Three rather disturbing results emerge from the Gardner figures, assuming that his findings are repeated in the UK follow-up studies. First, from these figures, it can be calculated (see Annex 1) that radiation's genetic dangers to one's children may well be twice as serious as the new higher risks of cancer to oneself. This is a disturbing finding. This level of genetic risk is so high that, assuming a straight line relationship between dose and effect down to zero, all childhood leukemias may be caused by the low background radiation to which everyone is exposed. In the past, a number of experts have stated that background radiation could well be a cause of childhood leukemias,(15) but there is now speculation in some scientific journals that it may now be the predominant cause. Second, when one adds these enhanced genetic and somatic risks together, as the ICRP does, to come up with a total risk, this is over 20% per Sv, or 3 times larger than the ICRP's newly revised risk estimates. -This means the ICRP draft limits are still too loose and will require substantial tightening as predicted in various scientific journals.(17) The third point is that the public has different perceptions of these two risks. To risk paid workers is regrettable; to endanger future generations and the human gene pool is a much more serious issue. The possibility that something as fundamental as one's ability to reproduce is being undermined by occupational exposures to radiation raises serious and disquieting questions. One likely result is that recruitment into the nuclear industry will become more difficult; another is the disinclination of women to seek radiation workers as eligible fathers and partners. Perhaps the most important point of all is that Canada's official watchdog, the AECB, has not publicly addressed itself to any of these points and has not indicated any intention of doing so in the near future. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 8) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 3. Other Studies It should be noted that the above risk estimates produced by the National Academy of Sciences and by the ICRP are very conservative. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have criticised these radiation authorities in the past for their conservative views and their close identification with civil and military nuclear interests. For example, the NAS's estimates and (up to the February 1990 draft) the ICRPs estimates have not included non-fatal cancer and all hereditary damage. Moreover, they have used a variety of assumptions (e.g. weighting factors; arbitrary RBEs and DREFS) which are contentious or whose values are questionable. Independent researchers and scientists (see further reading list at end) using more realistic assumptions have come up with much greater risk estimates. For example, Gofman (1990) quotes cancer risks of 25 % to 35 % per Sievert - three to four times greater than the NAS/ICRP estimates. Whether one believes the conservative radiation authorities or their critics, one issue remains clear:the present radiation limits in Canada need to be drastically tightened. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 9) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 4. Health Dangers These new dangers pose serious problems for the 100,000 radiation workers and the public exposed to radioactive pollution in Canada. Occupational The Gardner and ICRP reports indicate that radiation workers exposed to 10 mSv and more are putting themselves and their future children at serious risk. According to Health and Welfare Canada(18), in 1987, just under 1600 workers in nuclear reactor -related work were exposed to more than 5 mSv in a year, and 23 workers to over 30 mSv. (The figures are not published with any more precision.) At one Ontario Hydro nuclear plant, Pickering, 117 workers had received lifetime doses of more than 200 mSv, as of May 1990.(19) As for uranium miners, according to the AECB, half of the 6000 workforce received more than 1.5 WLMs (at least 15 mSv) per year of internal radiation between 1985 and 1987(20). And 700 of these uranium miners received an additional 5 mSv or more of gamma radiation in the same year(21). As a result, more than 270 uranium miners have already died from lung cancer due to radon exposures in northern Ontario alone as of 1986, and the number of cancer deaths are increasing according to the major union involved, the United Steel Workers of America(22). Public According to a study by an independent radiation biologist commissioned by Greenpeace(23) there is good statistical evidence of a strong association between radioactive tritium emissions into Lake Ontario at the Pickering nuclear power plant and newborn death rates at Pickering between 1980 and 1985. There is also a similar strong association between these emissions and the incidence of certain birth defects, including cleft palate and lip at Pickering. These associations are statistically significant above the 5% confidence level, i.e. there is less than 5% probability these results would have occurred by chance. Many Pickering residents obtain their drinking water from the Ajax water intake which is less than 6 kilometres from the Pickering effluent. Similarly in January 1990, the Quebec provincial government received a report from the Charbonneau Commission on toxic wastes which found extraordinarily high levels of birth defects surrounding the Gentilly nuclear reactor in Quebec, near Trois Rivieres. The report found three babies out of 174 in Gentilly were born without anuses -a rare birth defect generally found in only one in 5000 live births. Six other births without anuses were also found in the preceding three years in Gentilly, and abnormally high rates of miscarriages have been found in the area(24). In May 1989, the AECB published a study showing statistical evidence of higher than expected incidences of childhood leukaemia cases and deaths near nuclear facilities, similar to the excess leukemias in England near the Sellafield nuclear plant which triggered the Gardner study. Although the AECB heavily downplayed the findings,. the reality is that at Port Hope, Bruce and Pickering significant leukaemia excesses exist which the AECB has not explained. Greenpeace is presently reanalysing the AECB data in an attempt to disentangle the AECB's distorted presentation of the findings. When pressed by Greenpeace to explain why the AECB were refusing to make preliminary desk studies to find out where the fathers of the leukaemic children in their study worked (to test out the Gardner findings), AECB officials refused to give a reason. By June 1990, the AECB had not announced any follow-up study of the Gardner findings. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 10) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 5. The AECB's Radiation Standards - a Public Disgrace Most Canadian radiation health standards are set by the AECB which, revealingly, reports to the federal Department of Energy Mines and Resources. The Minister of this Department is Jake Epp, who has often stated his pro-nuclear convictions. Since his appointment to EMR, the Conservative Government has beefed up its already strong commitment to the nuclear industry, and in March Epp announced(26) a $64 million per year increase to $220 million per year in Government grants to the Atomic Energy Commission Limited. The AECL, whose duty is to promote nuclear power, also reports to this Minister. In the past, various Select Committees and Inquiries(27) have recommended that this obvious conflict of interest be removed and that the AECB's health and regulatory functions be transferred from the Energy Mines and Resources Department. None of these recommendations has been implemented. In 1980, the British Columbia Medical Association stated that the AECB was unfit to regulate and that its radiation exposure standards were "tantamount to allowing an industrially-induced epidemic of cancer"(28). Ten years later, not much has changed. Almost all of the AECB's radiation limits remain unchanged despite mounting evidence in the 1980's that radiation dangers have dramatically increased, and despite large reductions in international limits. Even with the three new 1990 studies, the AECB is still stonewalling and refusing to carry out its health duties properly. Kiggavik Uranium Mine A concrete example of why the AECB tolerates such lax public limits is provided by the recent environmental assessment report(29) on the proposed Kiggavik uranium mine in the North West Territories prepared for the Government by Urangesellschaft Canada Limited (a uranium mining company). This states that the extra dose to a member of the public living near the proposed mine could be 1.4 mSv per year, only 28% of the 5 mSv limit. Clearly any tightening of up the public limit by the AECB would threaten or rule out the Kiggavik mine and many other mines. The far more dangerous(30) Cigar Lake mine proposal in Saskatchewan would be a complete non-starter. Revealingly, the AECB, unlike the US EPA, has not seen fit to impose any public limit at all on the radioactive radon emitted from uranium mines, mills and mill tailings. The results are that our radiation limits are among the worst in the developed world, and that the health and safety of Canadians are being seriously compromised. Table 1 Some Canadian And International Radiation Limits Public -------------------------------------------------------------- Canada 5 mSv per year 1 US 0.25 mSv per year 2 UK 0.5 mSv per year West Germany 0.33 mSv per year 3 ICRP 1.0 mSv per year (averaged over 5 years) Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- Canada 50 mSv per year US 50 mSv per year 2 UK 15 mSv per year (averaged over 10 years) Sweden 15 mSv per year (averaged over 5 years) 4 ICRP 20 mSv per year (averaged over 5 years) Miners (alpha limits, in addition to the above worker limits) - ------------------------------------------------------------- Canada 4 WLMs per year 5 US 1 WLM per year Most Other Countries 0 Radon (action levels, ie, when remedial action is to be taken) - ------------------------------------------------------------- Canada 800-Becquerels per Cubic Metre US 150 Bq/m3 UK 200 Bq/m3 ICRP 200 Bq/m3 Tritium (tritiated water emission limits, per plant, per year) - ------------------------------------------------------------- Canada 46,800,000 Terbecquerels (Point Lepreau) Canada 5,330,000 TBq (Darlington) Canada 1,440,000 TBq (Pickering) UK 3,500 TBq (Sellafield) Belgium 104 TBq France 74 TBq Netherlands 72.8 TBq West Germany 37 to 74 TBq 1 US Environmental Protection Agency limit 2 Recommendation of UK National Radiological Protection Board 3 ICRP Recommendation; 1985 4 Draft ICRP Recommendation, February 1990 5 Recommendation of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Sources: AECB, European Commission) There is no safe level of radiation: all exposures, no matter how small, involve some detriment. Reducing the legal limits involves heavy safety costs and the AECB establishes a trade off between these costs and the effects on public health. The problem is that the two are not equally balanced; the AECB is completely swamped with views from the nuclear industry, and public health concerns independent of the nuclear industry are inadequately addressed. The result is that the AECB's limits do not represent current scientific thinking but what the Government thinks it can get away with, given the lack of public information about the real dangers of radiation. Also, individual limits do not address the serious problem of population doses. Employers can and do avoid the restriction imposed by an individual limit by hiring more workers to expose. This does not reduce the numbers of resulting cancers, it merely spreads them over a wider population. This is a serious weakness of individual limits. Nevertheless, such limits can provide a useful yardstick to compare international radiation limits and to press for improvements. The limits set out in Table 1 below are the legal limits set by the AECB, breach of which could in theory result in theory in criminal prosecution. Health and Welfare Canada sets voluntary action limits in the case of household radon exposures. The limits listed below for other countries are in most cases the legal limits. In some cases, de facto limits are given which have been recommended by the relevant authority and are in the course of being made legal. In such cases, they are widely observed by industry, government and unions in the country concerned. For a more detailed discussion of these limits, see Annex 2. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 11) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 6. Conclusions It can be seen that the AECB, both in the past and at present, has not properly guarded the health and safety of Canadians on radiation matters. In many instances, it seems as if the Board is more concerned with the economic health of the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry in Canada is huge. The Canadian Government is the world's largest exporter of uranium, and is a major promoter of nuclear power and food and material irradiation technology in the rest of the world. Ontario Hydro will soon be the world's second-most nuclearised utility and it is the only utility in North America seriously proposing a massive expansion of nuclear-generated electricity: it is also the world's largest producer of tritium, which can be used in nuclear warheads. Canada's exports of uranium, reactors, heavy water, and tritium all contribute to nuclear proliferation around the world. In the experience of Greenpeace most if not all of the senior personnel at AECB are pro-nuclear in their views. This is not surprising given the pro-nuclear attitudes of the federal Government, especially the Department of Energy, Mines & Resources and the Department of Health.& Welfare. These attitudes are not only found in Ottawa: many Provincial Ministries, especially the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour in Ontario, share this bias. Given this scenario of a pro-nuclear government/industrial consensus reaching tip to Ministerial level, major improvements in our radiation standards - set by the Federal Government - will not be easy. The strong and continuing public distrust of nuclear power as shown by successive public opinion polls, together with this Greenpeace evidence that the AECB's standards are increasingly falling behind the rest of the world, will help put pressure on the federal Government and the AECB to clean up their acts. The help of Canadian academics and health professionals is also needed to ensure that the Message gets through to the Government. Please write to your MP today or sign and send the attached postcard,to the Minister of Energy, Mines & Resources. July 1990 [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#======= (Part 12) CANADA'S RADIATION SCANDAL Written by Ian Fairlie, BA, MBA,MSc Greenpeace Canada 578 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ont. M6G 1K1 Date: 1990 Appendices Annex 1 - Genetic Risk Of Radiation-Calculated From Gardner's Figures The (UK) leukaemia incidence in children is approximately 1 per 2,000 live births From Gardner's table VI(l), a dose of 10 mSv before conception increases this risk by seven to eight times- that is to 1 in 300 live births. Assume that the dose of "greater than 10 mSv" is equal to a dose of 20 mSv. This means that there is a genetic risk of 1 in 300 from a dose of 20 mSv, which is equivalent to 1 in 6 per Sievert, or to 17% per Sievert. Similar calculations can be made using mortality instead of morbidity data. (*)Professor Gardner quoted in The Independent. (UK) February 22 1990. (**)This is the (conservative) assumption used by Dr H.J. Dunster, chair of one of the ICRP's sub-committees on radiation dangers, in his letter to Nature, Vol 344, March 8,1990. Annex 1- Canada's Radiation Limits Public The Public limit in Canada is 5 mSv per year; this excludes medical and background exposures (Figure 1). In 1985, the ICRP recommended that the public limit be tightened to an average of 1 mSv per year but the AECB refused to do this.The ICRP, in its latest February 1990 draft, emphasised the 1 mSv per year limit, and tightened its conditions. The UK's National Radiological Protection Board in 1987 recommended an even tighter 0.5 mSv limit, and its Director has stated 9340 that there are arguments for reducing it even further to 0.2 mSv. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency's public limit from the nuclear fuel cycle, under the US Atomic Energy Act, is 0.25 mSv per year. Workers This is 50 mSv(5 rem) per year and was set by the AECB in 1979 (Figure 2). It is the old level set by the ICRP in 1956 and is viewed by most experts to be obsolete. For a history and analysis of the shortcomings of this limit -see reference 31. The ICRP is in the process of changing this limit and has proposed an average of 20 mSv per year, although its draft was prepared before the publication of the Gardner report. In the past, the ICRP has often been criticised by environmental groups and trade unions for its slowness in responding to increased radiation risks and its unrepresentative structure. Although many governments follow the ICRP's recommendations, the radiation authorities in some countries consider the ICRP 50 mSv limit as being too lax and have recommended tighter limits of their own. For example, the UK and Sweden are both introducing average 15 mSv per year limits ahead of the ICRP's review. Uranium Miners At present, Canadian uranium miners can be exposed not only to 50 mSv of external gamma radiation from mine walls, but also 4 Working Level Months (WLMs-a unit of exposure to alpha particles from radon) of internal radiation from inhaled radon gas. The US level recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1988 is 1WLM per year. In accordance with ICRP advice, most other countries do not allow any special exposures for miners. It is very difficult to convert internal dosage into external mSv units with any degree of certainty. Canadian experts estimate that 4WLMs of internal radiation is equivalent to 40 mSv of external radiation. A great deal depends on the many assumptions used in the conversion, and there are now indications that 4 WLMs could amount to more than 200 mSv.(32) This is a serious matter because the AECB has stated(20) that over half the 6000 Canadian uranium miners were exposed to over 1.5 WLMS (ie, perhaps as much as 75 mSv) per year between 1985 and 1987. In 1977, the ICRP recommended(33) that the cumulative limit for both internal and external radiation should be 50 mSv per year. According to the union(22) representing Canadian uranium miners, the United Steelworkers of America, over 270 miners in Northern Ontario have already died from lung cancer due to radon exposure, and the numbers are increasing. The union has made many representations to Ottawa pressing for better standards, and finally in July 1989, the AECB announced that an overall limit of 50 mSv would apply from April 1991 when the proposed General Amendments to the Atomic Energy Control Regulations are implemented. However Greenpeace has been informally advised that these amendments have been delayed at least until 1993 because of procedural delays in the legislative process. Implementation of these amendments would entrench the obsolete 50mSv worker limit in Canada. Radon Radiation authorities around the world are increasingly expressing concern(35) about the rising risk estimates and consequent dangers of radon in homes. As a result, they are tightening their action limits with the exception of Canada's federal Department of Health and Welfare (responsible for radon advice) which has publicly refused to do likewise.(36) Indeed, in 1986, Health and Welfare actually relaxed its radon action limit fivefold!(37) The present action level (when some remedial action should be undertaken) for an annual average equilibrium equivalent radon concentration in Canada is 800 Becquerels per cubic metre(Bq/m3). This is worse than the radon standards set by other countries or authorities (Figure 3). For example, the ICRP in 1984 recommended an action level of 200 Bq/m3. The UK level was tightened in March 1990 to 200 Bq/m3 and the US limit is 150 Bq/m3 was established by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1986. Radon is released in large quantities from uranium and other mines and the huge uranium mill tailings in northern Ontario and Saskatchewan. Setting stricter limits for radon would involve official recognition of radon's health dangers in uranium mining which the Health & Welfare Department is apparently unwilling to acknowledge. Tritium Tritium limits in Canada are the highest in the world. For example, the Ontario Hydro reactors at Pickering have a total limit of 1,240,000 Terabecquerels (33.5 million curies) per year of tritiated water. This compares very unfavourably with, for example, the Netherlands limit of 2.8 TBq per year (75.6 curies). See Table 1 for a list of the waterborne limits for tritium in Canada and abroad. Because Canadian nuclear reactors use heavy water as a coolant and as a moderator, they produce much more tritium than any other type of reactor. Tritium is very radioactive: one gram of pure tritium contains 360 Terabecquerels (9,700 curies) of radioactivity. The AECB is responsible for setting Derived Emission Limits (DELs) for Canada's nuclear power stations. These limits are the amounts of radiation which, if emitted all the time, would result in the most exposed individual outside the plant receiving an annual dose at the legal public limit. These DELs are highly suspect because Canadian value are much greater than those calculated for other countries, and because they are ultimately based on the lax public limit of 5 mSv. This plus the many assumptions used in their calculations make their scientific value questionable. Their political value, however, is great, because they permit the legal operation of Canadian rector, and they permit Ontario Hydro to claim that it keeps to within 1% of these limits. This makes Hydro look as if it were health conscious. The reality is that 1% still allows Ontario Hydro to dump vast amounts of tritium into the Great Lakes. In 1988, Hydro pumped 1,670 terabecquerels (45,000 curies)(38) of tritium into Lake Ontario from the Pickering plant alone. This is a huge amount of radioactivity: 20 curies of tritium ingested by a person would be a fatal dose. In fact, Canada's nuclear reactors are the world's largest point sources of tritium. July 1990 Further Reading (in chronological order) Gofman, John W. Radiation and Human Health. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1981 Poch, David. Radiation Alert. Doubleday, Toronto, 1985 Bertell, Rosalie. No Immediate Danger? Virago Books, London, 1985 Russel Jones, R.(edit) Radiation and Health. John Wiley London, 1989 Caufield, Catherine. Multiple Exposures. Secker & Warburg, London. 1989 Gould, Jay M. and Goldman, Benjamin A. Deadly Deceit- Low Level Radiation, High Level Cover Up. Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1990 Gofman, John W. Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1990 Lambert, Barrie. How Safe is Safe? Unwin Hyman, London, 1990. Conversion Between Radiological Units From curie to becquerel 1 kilocurie (kCi)=37 terabecquerel (TBq) 1 curie (Ci)=37 gigabecquerel (GBq) 1 millicurie (mCi)=37 megabecquerel (MBq) 1 microcurie (uCi)=37 kilobecquerel (kBq) 1 nanocurie (nCi)=37 becquerel (Bq0 1 picocurie (pCi)=37 millibecquerel {mBq} From rem to sievert 1 kilorem (krem)=10 sievert (Sv) 1 rem (rem)=10 millisievert (mSv) 1 millirem {mrem)=10 microsievert (uSv) 1 microrem (urem)=10 nanosievert (nSv) From becquerel to curie 1 terabecquerel (TBq)=27 curie (Ci) 1 gigabecquerel (GBq)=27 millicurie(mCi) 1 megabecquerel (MBq)=27 microcurie (uCi) 1 kilobecquerel (kBq)=27 nanocurie (nCi) 1 becquerel (Bq)-27 picocurie (pCi) From sievert to rem 1 sievert (Sv)=1-- rem(rem) 1 millisievert (mSv)=100 millirem(mrem) 1 microsievert (uSv)=100 microrem(urem) 1 nanosievert (nSv)=100 nanorem (nrem) References 1.Committee on the Biological Effects of Radiation. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionising Radiation. (BEIR V) National Academy of Science. Washington, DC, USA.1989. 2.Washington Post, December 20, 1989. 3.New York Times, December 20, 1989. 4.International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the Commission. ICRP/90/G-01.Draft February 1990. 5.Quoted in Leukaemia Study Sparks Review Of Radiation Limits, New Scientist, Page 16, 24 February, 1990. 6.Gardner, M.J. et al, British Medical Journal, 300, 17 February 1990, pp 423-429. 7.Nature, page 677, 22 February 1990. 8.UK Hansard, 16 February 1990. 9.See for example the editorial Statistical Concern in New Scientist, 24 February 1990; the editorial Living With Nuclear Radiation in Nature, 22 February 1990; the editorial Anguish At Sellafield in The Times, 16 February 1990. 10. The Guardian, 3 April 1990. 11. The Guardian, 28 March 1990. 12. Press Release, issued by the UK Transport & General Workers' Union, 6 April 1990. 13. British Radiation Study Throws Experts Into Tizzy, Science, 6 April 1990. 14. See for example, Canada Won't Slash Radiation Exposure Levels, Official Says, Toronto Star, 9 March 1990. 15. Knox E.G. Stewart A.M. et al, Background Radiation and Childhood Cancers, Jour. Radiol. Protection, I, pp 9-18, 1988. 16. See for example, letters to Nature, Vol 344, 8 March 1990, by Dunster H.J.; to British Medical Journal, 15 March 1990, by Stewart A.M.; and editorial in BMJ, 17 February 1990, by Beral V. 17. See Reference 9, and Reference 16 (Dunster letter), and editorial Unacceptable Risk in Nature, Vol. 344,8 March 1990. 18. Occupational Radiation Exposures in Canada, 1987, Canada Health & Welfare. 19. MD Urges Probe Of Any Link Between Radiation, Asbestos, Toronto Star, 14 March 1990. 20. Statement to: Workshop On Statistics Of Human Exposure To Ionising Radiation, Oxford, UK, 2-4 April 1990, by Ching S.H. and Ho K.P., of AECB. 21. See Reference 18. 22. Personal Communication from Homer Seguin, Regional Officer, United Steelworkers Of America, 11 September 1988. 23. Report prepared for Greenpeace Canada, by Dr. Barry Lambert, Senior Lecturer in Radiation Biology, Bart's Hospital Medical School, University of London. June 1990. Available from Greenpeace. 24. See, for example, Paradis Suggests Nuclear Plant Is Not Likely Cause Of Birth Defects, Montreal Gazette, 15 March 1990. 25. Childhood Leukemias Around Canadian Nuclear Facilities AECB Report INFO-0300, May 1989. 26. Canada Agency gets $64 Million, Toronto Star, March 31, 1990. 27. See, for example, Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, June 1980, Recommendation XXL 28. The Health Dangers of Uranium Mining and Jurisdictional Questions. British Columbia Medical Association. 1980. 29. Kiggavik Project Environmental Assessment Report. Urangesellschaft Canada Limited, Toronto, January 1990. 30. See, Four Good Reasons To Stop Uranium Mining. A Greenpeace Briefing Paper. Greenpeace, Toronto, 1990. 31. Current Politics Of Radiation Protection In Canada. Greenpeace Submission to Canadian Labour Congress. Greenpeace, Toronto. September 1989. 32. See interesting discussion of various RBEs in Radon As A Causative Factor In Induction Myeloid Leukaemia And Other Cancers, The Lancet, 1008-1012, April 28, 1990. 33. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Recommendations of the ICRP, ICRP 26, 1977, Annals of the ICRP. 34. Hinkley Point C Inquiry (UK), Transcript of Proceedings, Day 64, page 56A, 8 February 1989. 35. See Reference 30 and letter to Nature, vol 344, 26 April 1990, Radiation and Exposure Rate, by Professor R.Doll and S. Darby. 36. Radon Gas Danger Level Still Unclear, Toronto Star, February 24,1990. 37. Radon Gas: Is it a Major Danger Now?, Toronto Star, April 20, 1986. 38. Ontario Hydro, Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data For 1988, Figs. 2.6, 2.7. [Greenbase Inventory December 4, 1990 ] =======#=======