Sir, - I write in reply to comments by Nuala Ahern MEP (March 3rd) about the stance taken by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) on the two subjects of radon and Sellafield.
In respect of radon, Ms Ahern assures your readers that she has "stated quite clearly" that what is needed is "to amend the building regulations and to deal with ventilation". As long ago as 1998 the building regulations were amended to cater for radon, and are now perfectly satisfactory in that regard.
She is also incorrect in singling out ventilation as the best way to remedy a high level of radon in a building. While it can help a little, by far the most effective methods are extraction of air from beneath the floor and, for new houses, sealing of the floor with a membrane. A clear case of prevention being better than cure.
As these are largely technical matters it is perhaps forgivable that Ms Ahern as a non-technical person should get them wrong. A less forgivable error is her statement that Dr Reville is on the Board of the RPII. He is not. So much for her suggestion that Dr Reville's alleged views must also be those of the RPII.
Ms Ahern appears to be unable to come to terms with the reality that the RPII is not a propaganda arm of the Government. The Institute's remit is to report the objective scientific facts as it finds them. It would be doing no service to anybody, and indeed would be betraying public trust, were it to present its findings selectively, because some of them were less supportive of Government policy than others. Its strength, and its value to the public, lies in being independent, rather than the voice of Government.
In the context of Sellafield, the finding which I suspect Ms Ahern finds "anodyne" is the unequivocal statement by the Institute that it is safe to eat fish caught in the Irish Sea, notwithstanding the presence in these fish of a small amount of radioactive contamination originating from Sellafield. It is our duty to give Irish fish consumers this assurance, even though BNFL will of course quote it for their own purposes. Ultimately, Ireland's case against Sellafield would be a weak one if it had to rely on suppression of the truth.
Ms Ahern's linking of the subjects of radon and discharges from Sellafield makes it necessary to give a simple numerical comparison of these hazards, even though doing so will give additional scope to BNFL to quote the RPII. A person eating large daily quantities of fish from the Irish Sea suffers in a year between one and two units (microsieverts) of radiation dose due to Sellafield contamination. From radon, the average person in Ireland receives each year a radiation dose of approximately 2000 units. Occupants of the Irish houses with highest radon levels receive doses each year of more than 100,000 units.
To put these figures in perspective, houses where the dose from radon is at the average level do not call for remediation, but at the highest doses the risk of lung cancer for long-term occupants becomes significant and remedial measures are warranted. It is sometimes suggested that radiation of natural origin, such as that from radon, is in some way less detrimental than that from artificial sources such as Sellafield. This belief is incorrect.
So, where does this leave Ireland's case against Sellafield? In fact, on a very solid foundation. Firstly, radioactive contamination of the Irish Sea by discharges from Sellafield is objectionable in principle, as is any additional radiation dose to people in Ireland due to an activity in another country, even if the practical consequence of the dose is not significant. But, much more importantly, the RPII has for long emphasised that Ireland's most serious concern regarding Sellafield is the risk of a major accident at the plant, a concern which has been strongly underlined by the severe indictment of management standards and safety culture at Sellafield in the recent reports from the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. It is on this danger that Ireland's case against the plant predominantly rests.
Ms Ahern concludes her letter with the cryptic comment that she is "not the only one" to have questioned the RPII's role. To my knowledge, those who share Ms Ahern's views about the RPII are monastic in their silence. - Yours, etc.,
Francis J Mulligan, Chairman, Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, Clonskeagh Road, Dublin 14.