May 2001
Yes, DU risks are acceptably small, but actually we don't have enough information on which to base that opinion
The panel has bought the NRPB line on the relationship between radiation "dose" and cancer yield, so they are to be condemned for accepting non-science.
They are also to be condemned for lying.
We are not aware, [says paragaph 4.1]
of any rigorous peer-reviewed studies that indicate any substantial underestimation of the risk of internally deposited radioactivity by the ICRP approach.
They have, however, highlighted uncertainties surrounding the large radiation doses resulting from inhalation of dust particles and the translocation of the particles into lymph nodes.
It is inconceivable that the panel has not understood that the uncertainties they speak of fatally undermine the ICRP model, thus making yet more nonsense of all their many calculations of cancer risks.
The Royal Society is holding a public meeting in London on June 13th. Dr Chris Busby will be a main speaker, representing the Low Level Radiation Campaign.
The Royal Society's first report does not cover risks to civilian families and their children in areas where the weapons were used... .
1 Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Errors in Statutory Risk Estimates. Chris Busby Molly Scott Cato: Energy and Environment Vol. 11 2000, No. 2 127-139 [see this link]
If you are seeing this page full screen (i.e. without a navigation bar on the left) you can't see how the rest of the site is organised.
The Royal Society's long awaited report on the impact of DU weapons on service personnel was published on 22nd May 2001. It is not impressive.
This is absolute nonsense. The sharp increase in infant leukaemia after Chernobyl published in June 2000(1) is just such a study and the panel were intensively briefed on its significance in July 2000.
This is, as we highlight elsewhere on this site, outside NRPB's paradigm, so it seems that LLRC's evidence did not fall on entirely deaf ears, and the Royal Society is calling for more research.
When the Royal Society panel does report on the impact of battlefield residues [later this year] we expect a whitewash, given that they are merely reviewing evidence, rather than conducting any of their own, and given the fact that the UN Environment Programme team completely failed to look for airborne DU when they went to Kosovo in November 2000
References
This Home page link takes you to the index page, which has links to all the topics we discuss on the site [only use it if this page is full screen]
Send email to: SiteManager@llrc.org with questions or comments about this web site.