Polonium-210
Officials understate risks, and mislead the public, leaving exposed people unprotected

Michael Clark of Health Protection Agency: Failing to understand

In the emergency following the death of Alexander Litvinenko, there are serious shortcomings in the approach taken by the UK authorities. While the advice published by NHS Direct may seem to show official measures are thorough, the Health Protection Agency-Radiation Protection Department (HPARP) consistently plays down the ease with which Polonium-210 can be obtained and over-estimates the quantity required to cause death and serious long-term illness. The language used in news reports, for example New Scientist 27th November, betrays the influence of a controlling hand anxious to avoid public alarm.

The news media report that the absence of acute radiation sickness in people like Mario Scaramella is a sign that there is no health problem. The outcome of giving undue emphasis to acute radiation sickness is that long-term stochastic effects are being dismissed, yet according to the conventional radiation risk model employed by HPARP there is no threshold for induction of these effects and inevitability they will appear eventually. We fear that potentially exposed people will be inadequately monitored both now and in the future when otherwise they could be given enhanced screening so that cancer and leukaemia would be detected early, offering a better chance of successful treatment.

• HPARP has given us no detail of the environmental monitoring techniques they are using, and has released no information on the levels of Polonium-210 found anywhere. We therefore cannot be confident that either the monitoring techniques or the radiological judgements are adequate.
• HPARP has given us no information on the monitoring and follow-up of potentially exposed people.
• Polonium-210 is a natural substance. Contrary to the repeated statements of the authorities and various "experts", Polonium-210 can be obtained in lethal quantities without access to a reactor or particle accelerator. (We are not giving details, for obvious reasons).
• HPARP has said that the sources and methods by which terrorists could obtain Polonium-210 in lethal quantities is a matter for the police and security services, but since those services will turn to HPARP for advice we can have no confidence that they will understand the nature of the threat. There is no indication that the authorities are moving to control potential sources of Polonium-210; we are seeking appropriate controls.
• Respirable particles of Polonium-210 will be formed by evaporation of any liquids used to transport the isotope. They will readily be resuspended in air from the surfaces on which the liquid medium was deposited, making them highly mobile and available to be inhaled.
• A lethal dose of 2 Sieverts would be delivered by inhalation of less than 5 nanograms of the isotope (4.7 x 10-9 grams or 4.7 billionths of a gram).
• A 5 nanogram particle would be invisible to the naked eye.
• A letter to LLRC (1st December) from Michael Clark of HPARP shows that he has misunderstood the basis of the risk calculations. The calculation of a 4.7 nanogram particle delivering 2 Sieverts is based on the officially-recognised (though flawed) risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and is not, as HPARP seem to believe, dependent on alternative models.
• The particles are not detectable with Geiger counters. Scintillation counters are required.
• From evidence given to LLRC it is clear that particles were present on board the three British Airways airliners which were grounded.
• Inhalation is a far more dangerous exposure route than ingestion, yet the authorities are ignoring inhalation and concentrating on the low probability of ingestion.
• NHS Direct is the only source of advice for people who are concerned that they might have been exposed. They are being told there is nothing to worry about unless they were in contact with Alexander Litvinenko or were in the three airliners. This ignores the possibility of exposure to particles in other locations.