Hi Klaus:
Without a hint of irony at the blatant hypocricies and
contradictions exposed by doing so, today's THE IRISH
TIMES juxtaposes the following:
A lengthy rebut by its weekly science correspondent,
Professor William Reville, of those who proclaim the
radiation fallout from the nuclear accident at
Chernobyl caused devastating and longterm health
effects to the local population;
An editorial strongly supporting the Irish
Government's efforts to get England's nuclear
Sellafield plant closed down due mainly to the
possible health dangers it poses to Irish citizens!
Both are pasted in both.
In "CHERNOBYL THE GOOD NEWS" Professor Reville
robustly defends the integrity of his fellow
scientists who drafted "Chernobyl's Legacy - Health,
Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts". He appears
aghast that Adi Roche (Executive Director, Chernobyl
Children's Project, Cork and co-producer of the
award-winning film CHERNOBYL HEART. See her December
28, 05 letter to THE IRISH TIMES below) would
insinuate "that the Chernobyl Report data was
presented selectively in order to downplay the gravity
of the situation" as "This would amount to
falsification - a mortal sin in science. Why would
hundreds of scientists conspire to do this? Indeed,
how could they do this, since the true story would
certainly leak out? The idea is preposterous and such
charges reflect badly on those who make them."
Ah, so, we non-scientists, flawed mortals that we are,
must be sternly reminded that ALL scientists, being
more gods than mortals, never stoop to gain!
A few paragraphs later, he returns to this theme of
the absolute, indeed non-veniality, of science: ". .
. If these groups are right, the integrity of science
has been destroyed.
But I can assure you that the integrity of
science is intact. Few harmful agents are as well
understood scientifically as radiation."
That last sentence, "Few harmful agents are as well
understood scientifically as radiation", penned by
Professor William Reville, public awareness of science
officer at UCC, is not a mirage!
So, one might naively ask, if scientists already know
everything they need to know about all aspects of
radiation (and that includes of course knowledge of
all adverse health effects of ionising and
non-ionising radiation, plus the health effects of new
technologies that people have not previously been
exposed to) why is the WHO conducting ongoing research
into the possible ill-effects of RF/MWs and other
technologies?; why is
COST's ("European Cooperation in the Field of
Scientific and Technical Research") main objective
this: ". . . to obtain a better understanding of
possible health impacts of emerging technologies,
especially related to communication and information
technologies that may result in exposure to
electromagnetic fields"?; why are so many
environmental doctors and other environmental
specialists deeply concerned at the ever-increasing
number of people who are becoming EHS
(electrohypersensitive)?
Even COST, in its role as a Pan European scientific
body,appears a tad humbler toward claiming omniscience
in this field (radiation-effects) than Professor
Reville. It lists among its secondary objectives:
"providing of a scientific evaluation of the available
data for use by various decision makers involved in
risk management of electromagnetic a basis for risk
communication efforts related to emerging
technologies, electromagnetic fields and possible
health risks and data on electromagnetic field
exposures related to emerging technologies on a
European level."
And what is the Irish Government's Sellafield fuss
about (see editorial below) when the radiation fallout
from the Chernobyl nuclear accident has been
scientifically decreed to be no big deal?
Let's return once more to a statement that jumps off
the page (at least for me) in Professor Reville's
article: "... falsification - a mortal sin in
science. Why would hundreds of scientists conspire to
do this?"
Why indeed!
Apart from this CHERNOBYL report, why have scientists
been blacklisted--and in many cases, their careers
derailed--when their research results threaten
powerful industries?
And the murky role of industry lobbyists in
manipulating the direction of scientific research
within the EU was revealed in another article in THE
IRISH TIMES, last Monday: "WATERING DOWN OF EU
REGULATIONS ON CHEMICALS PROVES POWER OF LOBBYISTS."
I have pasted this in below the radiation-related
articles.
One might wonder what Professor Reville thought of
these going-ons among his esteemed scientific
confreres at ACC (American Chemistry Council).
Your earlier postings on Chernobyl can be accessed at:
(31.12.05) Chernobyl, WHO and Utteridge's mice: Is
there a connetion?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1293003/
AND
(10.12.05) PLAYING DOWN THE EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1253880/
Best,
Imelda, Cork, Ireland
_____________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, THU, JAN 19, 06
"CHERNOBYL--THE GOOD NEWS
A recent column by Prof William Reville on the
Chernobyl Report provoked an angry response. He
answers his critics
My column of December 1st 2005 summarised the report
Chernobyl's Legacy - Health, Environmental and Socio-
Economic Impacts, which was released by the Chernobyl
Forum in September 2005. The report detailed the
assessment by hundreds of scientists, health experts
and economists of the impact of the 1986 nuclear
accident at Chernobyl. The experts who compiled the
report were drawn from eight specialised agencies of
the United Nations, as well as the governments of
Belarus, Russian Federation and the Ukraine. There was
considerable public reaction to my article.
The report declares that up to 4,000 people may
eventually die because of radiation exposure from the
Chernobyl accident, but, as of mid-2005, fewer than 60
deaths can be directly attributed to Chernobyl
radiation, and most of these were rescue workers who
were highly exposed to radiation shortly after the
explosion and who died within months of the accident.
Approximately 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mostly in
children and adolescents, are attributed to radiation
exposure. At least nine children died of thyroid
cancer, but 99 per cent of cases were successfully
treated. Otherwise, the experts found no evidence of
increased incidence of cancers among affected
residents.
The report is also reassuring about environmental
impact. A 30-kilometre area surrounding the reactor is
heavily contaminated and remains closed, and some
forests and lakes have also been closed off, but
otherwise radiation levels have returned to acceptable
levels. Although five million people live in areas
classified as contaminated, the majority received only
very low doses of radiation, comparable to natural
background radiation in many parts of the world. There
is no evidence of decreased fertility or an increase
in congenital malformations that can be attributed to
radiation.
The report highlights a distressing level of
"paralysing fatalism" among residents of affected
areas. The people have a grossly exaggerated
perception of the effects of the radiation to which
they have been exposed and now attribute all
ill-health to the radiation. The fatalism leads to
drug and alcohol abuse, unprotected sex and
unemployment.
The report recommends that, for these millions, still
classified as victims, the first priority should be to
encourage self-reliance in order to normalise their
lives as soon as possible. They should be educated to
understand the minimal risks they are facing and to
shed their fatalistic outlook.
However, up to 200,000 people remain severely affected
by the accident - poor people who live in the few
severely contaminated areas, people who were resettled
but never settled down in the new environment or found
a job, and the thyroid cancer sufferers. These people
need substantial help to rebuild their lives.
In a letter to The Irish Times (December 8th, 2005)
Patrick Crowley MB accused me of playing down the
medical impact of Chernobyl. He said he witnessed very
many congenital birth deformities when he visited the
area in 1994 and points to the 21,000 liquidators who
have died since 1986. In a subsequent letter to The
Irish Times (December 28th, 2005) Adi Roche points out
that it was clear to her on a recent visit to
Chernobyl that "cancers and genetic related diseases"
are greatly increased. In the meantime a couple of
letters welcoming the Chernobyl Report have also been
published.
Personal impressions of the incidence of disease on a
national scale are unreliable. Only scientifically
based surveys can produce reliable data. Such data was
carefully analysed by the experts on The Chernobyl
Forum. When they conflict, the personal impressions of
a few should carry little or no weight compared with
the results of careful surveys.
Roche hints that the Chernobyl Report data was
presented selectively in order to downplay the gravity
of the situation. This would amount to falsification -
a mortal sin in science. Why would hundreds of
scientists conspire to do this? Indeed, how could they
do this, since the true story would certainly leak
out? The idea is preposterous and such charges reflect
badly on those who make them.
And as for the 21,000 deaths among the liquidators
since 1986, this is just about the number that would
have died from natural causes in this group of 200,000
people anyway had the Chernobyl accident never
happened.
I have spoken to people, with varied backgrounds, who
read my article on the Chernobyl Report - accountants,
civil engineers, bankers, technicians and scientists
familiar with radiation. With the exception of the
latter group, nobody believed the Chernobyl Report.
People assume that radiation from Chernobyl has caused
hundreds of thousands of deaths and interpret the
report as a "whitewash" on behalf of the nuclear
industry. It is not unlikely that my personal poll
would be replicated in a nationwide survey of public
opinion.
It is alarming that amateur opinion in the specialised
area of health and radiation would take such strong
precedence in the public mind over the considered
study of hundreds of scientists. If these groups are
right, the integrity of science has been destroyed.
But I can assure you that the integrity of science is
intact. Few harmful agents are as well understood
scientifically as radiation. The Chernobyl Report
authoritatively confirms that the health effects of
Chernobyl are far less than originally feared. Is this
not good news? Should this not encourage the people of
Chernobyl to face the future with hope and optimism?
Who does it serve to encourage people to believe they
are seriously radiation-damaged, when in fact they are
not?
Economic and social help to the people of Chernobyl is
of limited use when so many believe their health is
irreparably damaged. Telling the truth would lift this
awful gloom.
• William Reville is associate professor of
biochemistry and public awareness of science officer
at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie
© The Irish Times
-----------------------------------
THE IRISH TIMES, THU, JAN 19, 06
EDITORIAL
"There is no doubt that the legal opinion delivered
yesterday by the European Union's Advocate General
amounts to a significant setback for the Government's
campaign to have Britain's Sellafield nuclear
reprocessing complex closed.
The Advocate General, whose opinions almost invariably
presage rulings by the European Court of Justice, has
found that the appropriate legal forum for pursuing
this issue of dispute between Ireland and Britain is
the court, and not via the United Nations Law of the
Sea Convention, the option pursued by the Government.
If the Advocate General's opinion is indeed upheld by
the court, then the Government will have been put in
its place. After all, as it well knows, the issue of
nuclear safety is clearly within the EU's remit.
Indeed, this may explain why former environment
minister Martin Cullen took such a highly publicised
case over Sellafield to the independent Permanent
Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2002.
It did not get very far in The Hague either. The first
case, taken under the Ospar Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment, produced a
verdict that Ireland's demand for the release of
commercially sensitive information on the Mox plant at
Sellafield did not fall within the scope of the
convention. The outcome of the second case, taken
under the Law of the Sea Convention, was even more
discouraging. In its preliminary ruling, the Hague
tribunal rejected Ireland's demand for an end to
radioactive discharges from the Mox plant because the
Government had not established that they were of
sufficient magnitude to cause "an urgent and serious
risk of irreparable harm" to the marine environment of
the Irish Sea.
But whatever about the relatively minor impact on the
Irish Sea, it is unquestionable that the reprocessing
- even the storage - of highly radioactive spent
nuclear fuel at Sellafield poses a continuing threat
to Ireland. This arises not just because of the danger
of accidents (of which there have been far too many),
but also because the plant itself is a potential
terrorist target. However, although it is clearly in
our national interest that it should be closed, it is
not within our competence to achieve this. Closure is
even less likely now, given that the British
government's latest energy review will probably
recommend more nuclear power stations - ostensibly
because they would help to reduce the carbon dioxide
emissions blamed for causing climate change; indeed,
this argument has become the principal argument of the
nuclear lobby.
Yesterday, Fine Gael TD and MEP Gay Mitchell called
for an end to the legal "posturing" over Sellafield
and suggested that Ireland and Britain "behave like
good neighbours" and seek to establish a bilateral
agency to oversee environmental and nuclear safety
issues. After all, it is not as if the Government
comes to this issue with clean hands: the raft of
legal actions by the European Commission speaks
volumes about Ireland's failure to implement adequate
measures to protect its own environment.
© The Irish Times
---------------------------------
THE IRISH TIMES, DEC 28, 05
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
"EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL, 20 YEARS ON
Madam, - With increasing fuel prices the debate has
reopened on the safety of nuclear power, relevant in
light of the approaching 20th anniversary of the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. Misinformation
and deliberate distortion of the facts have caused
much confusion to the debate. While the September 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on
Chernobyl says few have died, it has done nothing to
enhance our learning and knowledge about the scale of
the tragedy as it adds further confusion by trying to
find logical and finite answers while missing the
whole human and environmental trauma.
This report has further added unwitting support for
the governments of the affected region's policy
declaring the Chernobyl disaster officially over. The
IAEA report adds legitimacy to the governments'
policies of repopulation of previously evacuated areas
and re-cultivation of lands within radioactive zones.
The IAEA reinvention report on the consequences of the
disaster will be used to support the building of a
nuclear power station 25 miles from the exploded
reactor on the territory of Belarus.
The IAEA report should also be greeted with some
suspicion when you consider an agreement, signed in
1959, between the WHO and the IAEA, which hinders the
WHO in its freedom to produce material regarding the
consequences of Chernobyl without the agreement of the
IAEA. The primary objective of the IAEA is the
promotion of nuclear power plants in the world.
Article III of the agreement states: "The IAEA and the
WHO recognise that they may find it necessary to apply
certain limitations for the safeguarding of
confidential information furnished to them."
Personally having spent much of October and November
2005 in Ukraine and Belarus there is conclusive
observable evidence within communities, old and young,
of increases in cancer and genetic related illnesses
since the Chernobyl disaster.
Listening and observing filmmakers and journalists ask
the same questions time after time I am convinced that
they are asking the wrong questions. They ask: "How
many people died? How many will die? Is this or that
cancer or illness definitely caused by radiation? What
is Chernobyl? How much radiation were you exposed to?
Why do you all look so healthy? Show me the evidence."
These are questions with often non-specific answers or
answers that do not satisfy the required neat logic.
We seek absolutes in a situation where there can be no
absolutes, no definitive answers, for we ask the wrong
questions. People expect to see something grotesque
and distorted and are almost disappointed when people
and things appear normal - the media are perplexed.
But such expectations distract from the true effects,
with no realisation that any dose of radiation is an
overdose.
If we continue to seek only logical, rational answers
we will constantly be diverted from the true picture -
a picture of human and ecological fragility, a picture
showing us how delicately balanced the relationship
between man and nature is. I now believe that as long
as we try and place Chernobyl within our existing
understanding of catastrophes, understanding it will
continue to allude us. Our experiences from other
disasters are clearly inadequate because we are facing
a realm of the unknown not previously experienced,
requiring a new understanding, a new bravery, and a
new kind of courage. - Yours, etc,
ADI ROCHE, Executive Director, Chernobyl Children's
Project, Cork.
________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, MON, JAN 16, 06
AGENDA
"WATERING DOWN OF EU REGULATIONS ON CHEMICALS PROVES
POWER OF LOBBYISTS
Special interest group lobbyists are an increasing -
and effective - force behind the scenes in Brussels.
Samuel Loewenberg examines their (not always benign)
role.
Lobbyists are an accepted part of the landscape in
many political cultures, notably the United States.
But the work they do at the heart of the European
Union, and the extent of it, has so far escaped the
sort of attention and scrutiny that regularly erupts
in Washington.
This unelected group and the largely unaccountable way
in which it operates has now become a substantial
force in Brussels. The number of lobbyists in the city
tops 15,000, according to estimates from government
watchdogs.
More and more, the Brussels "influence trade" is
adopting the strategies and tactics learnt from US
colleagues. By the end of last year, EU lobbying
achieved its most dramatic success to date: scaling
back a major piece of environmental legislation that
was expected to have saved thousands of lives.
The European lobby has not only adopted Washington
tactics, it has magnified them, developing a form of
lobbying that spans all 25 member states of the
European Union. One key factor in this new form of
political pressure has been the might of American
companies. In at least one case, the Bush
administration, working in concert with American
manufacturers, became intimately involved in the
lobbying campaign.
The Irish Government has also been an important target
for industry lobbyists.
There is no better example of the growing power of the
Brussels lobby than its success in fighting the
European Union's plans to regulate the chemical
industry. When proposed regulations first began being
drafted in 2001 by officials inside the Commission,
the only body in the EU that can initiate legislation,
the suggestions appeared to be among the most
comprehensive and far-reaching rules ever to be
imposed on an industry in Europe. The proposals far
surpassed anything in the US or elsewhere across the
world.
The legislative proposals, known as Reach,
(Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of
Chemicals), were designed to rein in an industry that
for decades had placed chemicals on the market often,
in the eyes of its critics, with little oversight.
Ninety-nine per cent of the most commonly used
chemicals had little or no publicly available safety
and environmental information, according to
environmental groups and EU officials, who cite
concerns of increased incidences of cancer, allergies,
birth defects, and reduced fertility in recent
decades.
If given legal force by being approved by both MEPs
and the EU supreme ruling body, the European Council
of heads of government, and then ratified in each
member state, the regulations would for the first time
mandate testing on a range of chemicals found in
common consumer goods, from childrens' pyjamas to
computers, televisions to household cleaners.
In its first incarnation, the Reach proposal required
manufacturers to conduct extensive safety tests on
30,000 of its most commonly produced chemicals, most
of which had been around for decades. Of those, at
least 1,500 were expected to be severely restricted or
even banned. The EU estimated the costs to industry
would be €3.6 billion over a decade. The chemical
industry initially said its costs would be more than
double that. As the debate became more heated, the
industry cost estimates multiplied.
The benefits of the legislation were expected to be
dramatic, according to its proponents. According to
European Commission estimates, Reach was expected to
prevent more than 4,300 occupational cancer cases per
year, and would bring savings in health benefits of
€50 billion over a 30-year period.
"At present we are unwittingly testing chemicals on
both living humans and animals," said then-European
environment commissioner Margot Wallström to a
conference of chemical company executives in Brussels
in 2003. "It is high time to place the responsibility
where it belongs - with industry."
Since then the European Union's stance has changed
dramatically. In what some European commissioners have
said is the largest lobbying effort in the modern
history of the EU, European and US chemical
manufacturers orchestrated a multi-levelled and
multi-pronged pressure campaign that encompassed all
the original 15 EU member states plus the 10 new ones,
as well as countries outside the continent like Japan,
Mexico, China, and the US.
In the last two months of 2005, the testing
requirements have been cut back by about two thirds.
Of the original 30,000 chemicals that would have
undergone rigorous testing, since last November only
about 12,000 are now covered. This means that
thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals will now
slip through the testing procedures, according to
environmental groups like World Wildlife Fund and the
European Environmental Bureau. The environmental
groups expect further loopholes to be opened as the
legislation is debated in the coming months.
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION has proved to be among the
most significant in the lobby battle.
In the early days of Reach, US companies had not taken
the EU particularly seriously. "People thought the
proposal came out of nowhere. They were not accustomed
to having events in Europe have such a great potential
impact on their businesses," said Fred McEldowney, a
former top lobbyist for US chemical companies, when he
was interviewed for a US magazine in 2003.
How multinational chemical companies based in the US
worked with the Bush administration to fight the EU
chemicals regulations is a story that has not been
fully told.
By its nature, lobbying is done behind closed doors.
And in matters of influence and political pressure, it
is almost impossible to say why a politician acted in
a certain manner or why a piece of legislation
changed. That's especially true in the EU, with its
triple-layered decision making process, with each
mandate having to go through the European Commission,
parliament, and council. The chemicals legislation,
which began five years ago, is still being modified
and is not expected to be finished until the end of
this year.
But occasionally the efforts of the lobby do come to
light, as they did in a little-noticed report by a US
Congressional subcommittee that was published in 2004.
Drawing on secret diplomatic communiques and internal
governmental memos, the report by the staff of US
congressman Henry Waxman, the senior Democrat on
Congressional investigations and the environment
panels, revealed the multifaceted tactics and
intricate strategies used by US chemical manufacturers
like Dow and Dupont and the Bush administration to
push its agenda across Europe.
At least four US federal agencies became involved in
the lobbying effort, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Office of the US Trade
Representative, and the departments of State and
Commerce. The Waxman report cites a document from the
American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American
manufacturers lobbying group, which said that "ACC
rallied opposition to the draft proposal, including a
major intervention by the US government . . . These
efforts . . . brought about significant concessions in
the draft."
The ACC declined or did not respond to numerous
requests for a comment for this article. But there is
no denying the chemical industry's clout with
Republican officials. Since 2000, the chemical
industry gave over €17.3 million ($21 million) in
campaign contributions to elected officials, with
nearly 80 per cent of the money going to Republicans.
Nobody received more industry money than President
Bush: €741,000 ($900,000) since 1999, according to the
Waxman report.
The chemical industry first sought the Bush
administration's aid in February 2001, one month after
it had taken office. A US Department of Commerce
document unearthed by the Waxman report said that US
Commerce and Trade officials "have been actively
meeting with the US chemicals industry to solicit
their views and concerns . . . [ the US Department of]
Commerce and USTR [ the US trade representative] have
met with representatives from the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA), the
American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American
Plastics Council, ISAC 3, DuPont, and Dow to identify
industry concerns. Officials from the US mission in
Brussels have also met with a number of European and
US chemical companies based in Europe to solicit their
views on the strategy and its impact on their
industry".
In the wake of this initiative, American lobbyists met
American officials across Europe to figure out how to
defeat the proposed EU regulations. According to the
Waxman report, the US ambassador in Greece, Thomas J
Miller, met Dow Chemical executives "to discuss how to
engage the Greek government". According to an internal
State Department cable, the embassy "advised them that
they should activate their European industry
colleagues" and "identified appropriate Greek
government officials for industry contact and
explained how best to approach them based on their
political and philosophical orientation".
Another internal e-mail offered a strategy on how to
take on powerful EU Commission members, like
then-environment commissioner Wallström. "The only
thing that will get the EU to stop is having the EU
heavyweights come in and say that the Commission can't
take this forward until a real cost-benefit analysis
is done. But who will take on Wallström - the answer
is only other ministers or heads of state. The USG [
US government] plans to send in our ambassadors to
member states and Commission to make our case."
A key part of the strategy was to apply pressure not
only within the EU, but worldwide with the result that
the EU received opposition to the proposal not only
from the US, which had threatened a trade war over
Reach, but from Japan, Mexico, and a plethora of other
key trading partners.
On April 4th, 2003, the US trade agency sent an e-mail
to chemical lobbyists regarding EU member states that
they needed "to get to . . . and neutralise". In
particular, countries to be targeted were Germany, the
UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Ireland. All have
significant chemical and manufacturing industries.
The effects of the campaign were soon felt. In the
autumn of 2003, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
French President Jaques Chirac, and German Chancellor
Gerard Schröder wrote to the European Commission
expressing their concerns that Reach would hobble
European industry.
American chemical companies told The Irish Times they
did not want to discuss their lobbying effort. "It's
not the kind of information that we share openly,"
said Peter Paul Van de Wijs, Dow Chemical Company
spokesman in its Swiss headquarters.
IRELAND ALSO PLAYED an important role in the scaling
back of the proposed legislation. The fact that the
arguments to cut back Reach came from American
companies was not a factor, said one lobbyist who
spoke to The Irish Times on condition of anonymity.
"Ireland is always very receptive to listening to
industry and how its competitiveness will be affected
by regulation. It doesn't matter where the company
comes from, you won't get any nationalist
protectionism," said the lobbyist, who works on behalf
of an American chemical and manufacturing company.
Ireland, as well as EU member states like Poland and
Spain, continues to be a key target of lobbying
efforts by US companies like Dupont, Dow, Honeywell,
and GE, according to the lobbyist. The standard
argument is that too many new regulations will hurt
the country's competitiveness. The chemical industry
is one of Ireland's largest, and US investment in the
Irish chemical industry is $10 billion.
One of the key changes in the lobbying battle occurred
after the legislation was put under the jurisdiction
of the EU's Competitiveness Council in 2004, which was
then headed by Tánaiste Mary Harney, who at the time
was minister for enterprise trade and employment.
This was particularly significant, says Éamonn Bates,
an Irish-born lobbyist for the US chemical industry
who is based in Brussels, because it reflected the
increased mobilisation of the broader European
manufacturing industry to get involved in the chemical
legislation. "Bit by bit people started to realise
this affected not just the chemical industry but them
as well," he said. "The industry lobbying has
coincided with a broader malaise in Europe."
Environmental groups like Greenpeace say that the
broad industrial opposition to the Reach legislation
was due to scaremongering. They argue that costs to
industry were wildly inflated, pointing to internal
industry studies that suggest the testing requirements
would not materially affect large chemical
enterprises.
The most effective lobbying, nearly everybody agrees,
has occurred in Germany where the new centre
left/right grand coalition government has agreed to
make Reach more industry friendly. This demonstrates
the exceptional power of German industry, according to
Maria Tydecks, a lobbyist who was involved in the
debate.
"It's extraordinary in the sense that the German
government will use its influence and its power to
change the EU directive," said Tydecks, who heads the
Berlin office of Apco, a Washington based lobbying
firm. The German chemical industry is one of the most
influential industries in the country, she says. "They
have access to both parties [ in the government]," she
says, the result of "long term networking."
Yet for all of the insider connections upon which
lobbyists depend, it seems that, ironically, it is the
greater democratisation of the Brussels process that
has been particularly helpful to corporations.
The chemicals legislation was at its strongest when it
was being drafted by the bureaucrats in the EU
Commission. It was when the legislation reached the
parliament, which has recently gained much more power,
that the lobbyists made some of their greatest gains.
Further complicating matters were the 10 new members
states, all of which now had a say in the legislation.
Many of these countries depend on heavy industry,
Poland is a case in point, and it is believed they
were especially receptive to competitiveness
arguments.
Environmentalists say that many of the health concerns
that gave rise to the original, more robust proposals
from the Commission, had become lost in the babble.
Throughout the parliament, key legislators reported
being contacted by one or more lobbyists every day.
For many of them, with only one or two staff members
to support them, this was a deluge of information.
"Most of the EU and German parliamentarians I talked
to told me it was the first time they got such massive
lobbying," said Dr Andrea Paetz, a lobbyist for German
chemical manufacturer Bayer, AG.
And on this occasion, it seems that the lobbying
worked. Good for the lobbyists; less good perhaps for
the consumers of Europe.
FREE FOR ALL: Lobbyists operate without oversight or
restriction
Despite its reputation for wanting to regulate almost
everything, the EU seems to have forgotten about
lobbyists. Other than a requirement to write down
one's name in order to gain access to EU buildings,
lobbyists in Brussels operate without oversight or
restriction.
By comparison, the US Congress requires lobbyists to
file twice-a-year reports that list their clients, how
much they are being paid, and what issues they are
lobbying on.
No such regulations exist in Brussels. While the
industry has a voluntary code of conduct, there are no
mandatory regulations and self regulation does not
seem to impress even the Commission. Vice president
Siim Kallas has said the code is not comprehensive and
does not provide much information on specific
interests represented, nor how they are financed.
The organisation that represents EU lobbyists, the
Society of European Public Affairs Professionals, is
against mandatory disclosures, on the grounds that the
voluntary code of conduct is sufficient. But the code
offers plenty of leeway, such as the society's rule on
"financial inducements". It states a lobbyist should
"not offer to give, either directly or indirectly, any
financial inducement to any official, member of staff
or members of the EU institutions, except for normal
business hospitality".
By that standard, much of the scandal that is now
rocking Washington, including golfing vacations, free
restaurant meals and box seats at sporting events, are
all fine in Brussels.
One of Washington lobbyists' favourite tricks has made
its debut in Brussels, and is already quite popular.
It's the practice of front groups, by which a
corporation faced with regulation, such as banning a
toxic product, hires a public relations or lobbying
firm to produce seemingly rational scientific
arguments against the new rules.
Hence the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum and
the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe,
organisations which tout their concern with science
and the public interest. In fact, both are the
creations of the international public relations firm
Burson Martstellar, working on behalf of a consortium
of manufactures of the chemical bromine. For years,
the EU has been trying to limit the substance severely
or ban it altogether as a flame retardant in household
appliances because of its toxicity.
Another Washington favourite now evident in Brussels
is the revolving door, the process by which lobbyists
for an industry and members of government overseeing
that industry, simply trade places. As well as having
inside information, former officials also have
established relationships with the people they will
lobby.
The chemical industry lobby, known as the European
Chemical Industry Council, embroiled in battles on the
Reach chemical regulations, has taken advantage of
this dynamic. Its director for Reach policy is Lena
Perenius, who spent six years in the chemicals unit of
the EU Commission's enterprise and industry division.
Meanwhile, Uta Jensen Korte, a lobbyist for the
chemical council, has now gone to work for the
Commission.
Also taking advantage of the revolving door was
Microsoft. After getting smacked in numerous
regulatory tussles with the EU, the software giant
hired Detlef Eckert, the former head of policy
planning for the European directorate of information
technology.
Multinational companies are also targeting member
states. One US investment bank executive said his
company had well-connected former high-level officials
on retainer in almost every European country. "We can
get access to anybody we want to," he said. "
© The Irish Times
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Hi Klaus: Dr Patrick Crowley of the Irish Association
of General Practitioners, in a letter published last
Thursday (THE IRISH TIMES, Dec 08, 05), challenging
the arguments of those recent correspondents who
claimed that Chernobyl did not have devastating health
consequences for the local population, states:
"As a practising doctor who writes death certificates
regularly I am fully aware that the cause of death
will not be written down as radiation. Instead a
physical classification will appear: leukaemia,
hydrocephalus, cardiac valve deformity, etc. So Prof
Reville's source statistics are meaningless.What about
the estimated 25,000 liquidators who have died since
1986 of various causes linked to radiation exposure,
but again are not recorded as such."
And this is also what is happening in our situation.
I have included the complete text of Dr.Crowley's
published letter below plus that of the earlier
letters and article ("MENTAL ILL-HEALTH BECOMES
CHERNOBLY'S BIGGEST PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM")which have
led to his rebuttal.
You have also archived at
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/358598/
earlier information I've sent you on this topic.
Best, Imelda, Cork
__________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, THURS, DEC 08, 2005
PLAYING DOWN THE EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL
Madam, - Prof William Reville's piece on Chernobyl
(Science Today, December 1st) is disturbing on a
number of fronts. Firstly, it plays down the medical
impact, classifying Chernobyl as a serious accident
rather than a disaster, and having the UN's Chernobyl
Forum go guarantor to these alleged scientific
truths/facts.
Prof Reville writes that, as of mid-2005, fewer than
60 deaths can be directly attributed to radiation.
What bunkum! In 1995 I travelled as a doctor to Minsk
and Gomel, visited hospitals, orphanages, clinics,
talked to physicians, surgeons, paediatricians, saw
things with my own eyes and was filmed in what I
called the "death wards". These are places in
orphanages and clinics where children with congenital
birth deformities are left barely attended, with no
therapy, to the inevitable outcome -death. I probably
saw 60 of those types of cases in that week alone.
As a practising doctor who writes death certificates
regularly I am fully aware that the cause of death
will not be written down as radiation. Instead a
physical classification will appear: leukaemia,
hydrocephalus, cardiac valve deformity, etc. So Prof
Reville's source statistics are meaningless.What about
the estimated 25,000 liquidators who have died since
1986 of various causes linked to radiation exposure,
but again are not recorded as such.
If Chernobyl is presented as so much less important
than a natural disaster such as the Asian tsunami or
the Kashmir earthquake, one must ask who gains by
playing it down. One answer is that governments do. In
the age of 9/11, terrorists may attack nuclear plants
and future Chernobyl-type disasters don't bear
thinking about.
Honourable scientists know the reality. Albert
Einstein knew that "the splitting of the atom has
changed everything except our way of thinking, and
thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe". -
Yours, etc,
PATRICK CROWLEY MB, Kilmoganny Health Centre,
Kilmoganny, Co Kilkenny"
[Association of General Practitioners
c/o Dr Pat Crowley, Kilmoganny, Co Kilkenny
Tel: 051 648 007
Email: info@agp.ie
Web: http://www.agp.ie ]
______________________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, THU, DEC 01, 05
"MENTAL ILL-HEALTH BECOMES CHERNOBLY'S BIGGEST PUBLIC
HEALTH PROBLEM
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
"MENTAL ILL-HEALTH BECOMES CHERNOBLY'S BIGGEST PUBLIC
HEALTH PROBLEM
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
[by] Prof William Reville
[by] Prof William Reville
The greatest accident in the history of nuclear power
occurred on April 26th, 1986, at Chernobyl in the
former Soviet Union. A massive explosion released a
large inventory of radioactivity to the atmosphere to
be carried widely over Europe and deposited as
fallout.
Nearly 20 years later an international team of more
than 100 scientists has issued a report entitled
Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and
Socio-Economic Impacts (September, 2005). The group,
called The Chernobyl Forum, is made up of eight
specialised UN agencies including the International
Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation, UN
Development Programme, Food and Agriculture
Organisation, UN Environment Programme, UN Office for
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UN Scientific
Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the
World Bank. The governments of Belarus, Russian
Federation and Ukraine, the three most affected
countries, were also involved.
The report concludes that although 4,000 people could
eventually die as a result of exposure to radiation
from the Chernobyl accident, as of mid-2005 fewer than
60 deaths can be directly attributed to radiation from
the incident. Almost all of these deaths were among
highly exposed rescue workers most of whom died
shortly after the accident, although others died as
late as 2004.
The chairman of the Chernobyl Forum, Dr Burton
Bennett, said: "This latest research can help to
settle the outstanding questions about how much death,
disease and economic fallout really resulted from the
Chernobyl accident. This was a very serious accident,
especially for the thousands of workers exposed in the
early days who received very high doses of radiation
and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid
cancer. By and large however, we have not found
profound negative health impacts to the rest of the
population in surrounding areas nor have we found
widespread contamination that would continue to pose a
substantial threat to human health, with a few
exceptional, restricted areas."
About 1,000 on-site reactor staff and emergency
workers were exposed to high levels of radiation on
the day of the accident and more than 200,000
emergency and recovery operation workers were exposed
during 1986-1987. Some 2,200 radiation-caused deaths
can be expected over the lifetime of these people.
This figure rises to 4,000 when residents of the most
contaminated local areas (270,000) and evacuees
(116,000) are taken into account. These figures would
qualify Chernobyl as a serious accident, but not a
disaster.
Fifty-six deaths have been directly attributed to the
accident to-date. This figure comprises 47 emergency
workers most of whom died early on from acute
radiation syndrome (ie, died within months from
massive exposure to radiation) and nine deaths among
young children who developed thyroid cancer after
drinking milk contaminated with radioactive iodine.
These figures are considerably less than popular
worldwide and local perception of the impact of the
Chernobyl accident would suggest. Confusion over the
impact of the accident arises because thousands of
people in the affected areas have since died of
natural causes unrelated to radiation, but a
widespread expectation of ill-health and a tendency to
attribute all ill-health problems to radiation have
led local residents, and many observers from afar, to
assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much
higher than they were in reality.
The greatest harm was inflicted on emergency workers,
many of whom displayed great heroism. In the wider
region, residents who ate food contaminated with
radioactive iodine in the days following the accident
received relatively high doses to the thyroid gland -
iodine in food concentrates in the thyroid. Children
who drank milk from cows fed on contaminated grass
were
particularly affected and there was a high incidence
of thyroid cancer in children - about 4,000 cases.
Ninety-nine percent of those cases were treated
successfully, but nine children died.
Most people living in contaminated areas received
relatively low whole body doses, comparable to natural
background levels of radiation. No evidence of
decreased fertility among the affected population has
been found. There is no evidence of effects on number
of stillbirths, delivery complications or overall
health of babies.
A modest increase in reported congenital malformations
in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of
Belarus appears to be related to better reporting and
not to radiation.
Ecosystems affected by Chernobyl fallout have been
studied for the past 20 years. More than 200,000
square kilometres of Europe were contaminated. The
extent of contamination was patchy, depending on
whether it was raining when contaminated air masses
passed overhead. The recent report shows that, except
for the still closed, highly contaminated 30km area
around the reactor, and some closed lakes and
restricted forests, radiation levels have mostly
returned to acceptable levels.
The report concludes that the largest public health
problem resulting from the accident is "the mental
health impact". Residents in the region, who were
victims of a tragedy they poorly understand, continue
to suffer grave anxiety and this has prevented them
from restarting their lives. This "paralysing
fatalism" has led to an increase in drug and alcohol
use, unprotected sex and unemployment. The report
recommends that the first priority should be to
encourage these people to normalise their lives by
providing them with realistic information about the
minimal risks they face.
However the report acknowledges that about 200,000
people continue to be severely affected by the
disaster in a very real way. These include poor rural
dwellers who live in the few severely contaminated
areas, people with thyroid cancer and people who were
resettled after the accident but who never found a
home or employment in their new communities. These
people "need substantial material assistance to
rebuild their lives".
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry
and public awareness of science officer at UCC -
http://understandingscience.ucc.ie
© The Irish Times
________________________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, MONDAY, NOV
21, 2005
Madam, - Prof Philip Walton (November 11th) makes the
point that
misinformation about nuclear accidents, such as
Chernobyl, has caused misconceptions about its safety
and its ability to help solve the problem of
satisfying energy demand without damaging our
environment.
Unlike other accidents, such as plane crashes, dam
failures, mining disasters, etc, the health and
environmental consequences of nuclear accidents take
time to confirm because much radiation damage cannot
be determined until years, even decades, after the
exposure. An exception, of course, is severe radiation
exposure, which, thankfully, is rare.
The accidents which have coloured our view of nuclear
energy are: the Windscale fire (1957); the partial
meltdown of the core of a reactor at Three Mile Island
in the US (1979); and, of course, the Chernobyl
disaster (1986).
We now know that there were no serious after-effects
for human health or the environment in the cases of
the first two accidents. This is based on published
epidemiological, environmental and other scientific
studies.
Although the same cannot be said about Chernobyl, its
effects have been greatly exaggerated over the years
and this is plain to see in the recent report of the
Chernobyl Forum.
Experts from the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, the World
Health
Organisation and seven other UN organisations have
sifted through the evidence over the past two years
and have comprehensively described their findings.
Among these is that the majority of the 700,000 rescue
workers and the 5 million residents of the
contaminated areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia
received relatively minor doses which are comparable
to natural background levels.
Of the few hundred rescue workers and reactor
operators who received high doses some 50 have died -
not thousands or even tens of thousands as hitherto
believed by many people. Also, there was no evidence
of congenital disease. Several thousand cases of
thyroid cancer were found in children, of which 99 per
cent are reported to have been successfully treated.
Finally, radiation levels in the Chernobyl environment
have reduced by a factor of several hundred due to
both natural processes and countermeasures taken by
the authorities. The majority of the contaminated land
is now safe for living and working.
The risks of nuclear power must be put into the
perspective of increased difficulties with the supply
of oil and gas and the consequences of detrimental
climate change, which I expect will be more
dramatically revealed in about 12 months' time when
the International Panel on Climate Change releases its
next report.
I hope that politicians will act on Prof Walton's
message. An in-depth examination of the potential of
nuclear power to alleviate impending energy shortages
would be a sensible first step. No energy option can
be ignored. -
Yours, etc,
FRANK TURVEY , Church Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow.
_______________________________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, THU, NOV 24,
05
Madam, - Having just completed research for an energy
policy for the Progressive Democrats, I have spent the
past few months looking at all the energy options to
help Ireland overcome the challenges we face with
power generation. Naturally such research looked at
the nuclear power option.
The cost of developing nuclear power in Ireland would
be disproportionately high, given our lack of nuclear
infrastructure, our high construction costs and the
considerable opposition to nuclear power. In addition,
the true cost of nuclear power is indeterminable
because of the nature of decommissioning costs.
Our research also revealed that, given Ireland's very
favourable
location to harness wind and wave power coupled with
our favourable climate to grow biomass, nuclear power
would never be able to compete on an economic basis
with these renewable energies.
Rising oil and gas prices have made the economic case
for renewable energies much sooner than expected. We
are uniquely positioned to exploit these green
energies and, if given the right fiscal climate, to
pioneer research and development,much as we have done
with information technology.
Ireland is facing a huge challenge with fuel security.
We have the right climatic conditions to develop a
green energy industry. All we need is the right
attitude.
The business case for nuclear power in Ireland does
not stand up when we have cheaper, cleaner
alternatives to hand. - Yours, etc,
FIONA O'MALLEY TD,
PD Energy Spokesperson,
Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2
__________________________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, FRI, NOV
11, 05
Madam, - May I support the letter from Somhairle Mac
Aodha (Nov 1st) concerning the end of cheap oil. It is
true that world oil production will peak within the
next few years and then decline at an annual rate of
about 2 per cent.
This comes at a time when demand is increasing,
especially from developing countries such as China and
India.
Industrialisation has been almost totally dependent on
the plentiful supply of cheap oil and gas. We will
have used, in about 200 years, half of the oil/gas
reserves which were created over many millions of
years.
Our profligate use must be curtailed if we are to
extend the life of this vital resource which, as well
as being an energy source, is a vital feedstuff for
agriculture and the whole chemical industry.
With impending shortages we need to use every
available source of energy such as renewable sources,
strict conservation measures and the use of nuclear
power.
It is unlikely that renewables will ever contribute
the major fraction of our needs and nuclear power is
the only option for the base load which produces
negligible greenhouse gases. (We hope that nuclear
fusion will ultimately be an answer but that seems a
long way off.)
The well known environmentalist, James Lovelock (guru
of the UK Green Party) has now come out very strongly
in favour of nuclear power.
France generates about 80 per cent of its electricity
from nuclear power with very few problems or public
objections. Radiation phobia, fuelled for example by
misconceptions and misinformation about Sellafield and
Chernobyl, have impeded the growth of nuclear power
but things will have to change.
The legacy of nuclear waste buried in stable
underground sites for many thousands of years is of
little consequence compared to the problems we are
going to face. - Yours, etc,
PHILIP W WALTON, Moycullen, Co Galway.
____________________________________________________
THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, TUE, NOV 01,
05
A chara, - As the media well know, we have reached the
end of cheap oil (as Jacques Chirac has recently
stated and as even Chevron-Texaco admits on its
website).
Regardless of whether the peak in world oil production
("peak oil") occurs this year or in 2015, according to
the Hirsch report we need at least 10 years of
preparation for the coming oil crisis. The world is
about to change dramatically and permanently as a
result of oil depletion, and it is no longer just the
opinion of Colin Campbell, Matthew Simmons, Richard
Heinberg, et al. We are hopelessly addicted to oil,
relying on it for
everything from plastics, transport, heating,
pesticides to delivering fresh water.
Given that 87 per cent of the fuels to produce
Ireland's electricity are imported, and that a large
proportion of our gas comes from the UK's rapidly
depleting gas supplies, what radical action is Ireland
taking? Surely, relying so heavily on imported oil and
gas at a time when prices are rocketing is utterly
ludicrous?
I urge the media to stop the scandalous silence over
this enormous issue and to do an in-depth reportage
into the topic of "peak oil" and Ireland's energy
security. - Is mise,
SOMHAIRLE MAC AODHA,
Páirc na Labhras,
Caisleán Nua,
Gaillimh.
_____________________________
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/358598/
Chernobyl Heart
On "Chernobyl Heart" and EHS
I've just come from viewing "Chernobyl Heart" an
opening day entry at this year's Cork Film Festival.
What a poignant and honest film, unsparing in showing
closeups of children with horrific deformities,
teenagers with tyroid cancer, and of countless other
manifestations of shattered lives due to that ghastly
Chernobyl radiation disaster. In the film it was
stressed how invidious radiation is as it is invisible
(a silent killer) and how it weakens the immune
system's resistance to diseases.
At the Question and Answer session following the film,
I asked Maryann DeLeo and Adi Roche whether any
attention had been given to the possibility that these
young victims now resident in hospitals, orphanages,
and other institutions might also be EHS. I added that
nearby masts and cellphones could cause these children
further distress.
As my hearing is impaired I could not catch Maryann
Deleo's response but later another attendee told me
she--Maryann-- responded that their focus in
"Chernobyl Heart" was solely on the health hazards of
ionizing radiation.
I spoke briefly with Adi Roche before leaving the
cinema and asked her to please take note of factors
such as flourescent lighting, etc, that could cause
those unfortunate children even worse discomfort. I
directed her to some online EHS sources.
Frankly, I don't think my introducing the subject of
non-ionizing radiation effects was well-received by
the audience, but such a cold-shoulder reaction should
come as no surprise to any of us. We activists on this
EHS beat know ours is the most unpopular cause in evey
country--except of course for our small number of
dedicated supporters and ever increasing number of EHS
affected.
But there are also some highly respected scientists
who deny that the Chernobyl nuclear radiation accident
had any disastrous health effects. And Irish
professors feature among these, as can be seen in my
posting to you earlier this year (EMF-Omega-News
28-02-04) which I have now pasted in below.
Best, Imelda, Cork
Pasted from EMF-Omega-News 28-02-04:
http://tinyurl.com/5pb7z
There are, however, some prominent academics and other
radiation specialists here in Ireland who continue to
deny in the face of astounding contrary evidence that
the Chernobyl radiation accident has had any
significant health effects on the population of
Belarus. For instance, Professors Philip W. Walton,
(Applied Physics) and Wil J.M. Van Der Putten (Medical
Physics) at NUI (National University of
Ireland),Galway hold this view and cite the published
findings of UNSCEAR (the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) as
presented to the UN General Assembly in 2000 in their
support.
The text of letters to the Irish Times by Professors
Walton and Van Der Putten, and others are archived at
Citizens Initiative Omega on these dates:
9/5/03 Subtitled: "Chernobyl bio-disaster is a myth
say two Irish Professors"
http://tinyurl.com/5x8ot
14/5/03 Subtitled: "Effects of Chernobly Disaster"
http://tinyurl.com/7xram
15/5/03 "A measured response letter to Chernobyl
nuclear disaster"
http://tinyurl.com/6yu5o
Links:
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/chernobylheart/
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/03/6cb4b823-8b6a-4051-97b2-537daf5f0c45.html
http://www.showbizireland.com/news/october04/04-u2167.shtml
Starmail - am Sonntag, 10. Oktober 2004, 17:23 -
Rubrik: Mobilfunk Archiv (Englisch)