Useful Information

This page wil contain information and links to sites to do with radiation, and other aspects connected to the proposal

This is the big unknown.

It is unknown because not enough has yet been learnt about the effects of radiation, especially in the long to very long term.

It is also unknown because everybody has a different level of resistance to the impacts of radiation.

It is known that radiation is a cause of leukaemia and cancer; it is not known how much radiation is needed.

As with many diseases, the amount needed to act as a 'tipping point' between safety and danger is minute, and presumably well below 0.02.

One thing that we can be sure of is that the presence of this radioactive material implies a risk to human health, both now and in the future.

What is debatable is how great a risk, whether we are willing to take that risk on behalf of ourselves, our children, and future generations for many hundreds of years, and whether we can see any benefits from taking that risk.

There are two issues here: what actually is wrong, and what is perceived to be wrong. Both are significant in their own ways.

1. Reality
In terms of what is wrong with it, there is much dispute due to the difficulty of connecting these levels of radiation with effects on health.

There is no doubt that the proposed levels are low. 200 Bqs/ gm is the limit for King’s Cliffe, and Low Level Radioactive waste goes up to 4000 Bqs/gm. To put it in terms of effects on health, 0.02 millisieverts is the promised maximum dose for King’s Cliffe while natural background radiation in the area is about 3 millisieverts (above the national average).

The problem is: does low mean safe?

The government have classed these levels as safe by using a simple theory called the Linear No Threshold, which basically sees the danger to health from radiation in terms of a straight line in which the higher the levels of radiation the higher the risk to health, and the same for lower levels. This makes good sense, but it may not be correct. This is because higher levels of radiation kill body cells outright, while lower levels cause damage to cells which can lead to mutations and cancers. Thus low levels of radioactivity are often more dangerous than higher levels.

A quote from the Environment Agency in its draft authorisation for the site sums up the problem:
  “It is true that an exposure to 0.02 mSv per year of ionising radiation would be expected to have an adverse effect on human health but, as already
  explained, this effect is very small. It is also far below any possibility of detection.”
This may, or may not prove reassuring.

At the Public Inquiry into the King’s Cliffe application, Augean admitted that they were wrong to have stated that there was ‘no risk’ to human health, but they still maintained that the process was safe!

2. Perception
The internet, and scientific literature, is full of arguments for and against the safety of radioactive waste, and there is not enough room to repeat all of them here. People must make up their own minds. What is significant, however, is that there is a very widespread belief, in this area as in others, that such material is dangerous, ad this leads to the problem of perception which can have a strong effect on the area.

A belief that they are living close to a source of danger, will have an unsettling effect on some people that can lead to stress and genuine health problems.

Any community depends on an influx of young families. How many people will choose to locate, or continue living close to, a radioactive waste dump?

What will happen to house prices, and what will the situation of being unable to sell a house do to people who live here now?

What will the location of the waste dump do for tourism initiatives in the area?

How keen will buyers be to purchase food crops from land in proximity to a radioactive waste dump?

How many businesses will choose to locate to a place with a radioactive waste dump?

How much would you like to live near to a radioactive waste dump?

We simply don’t know the answer to these questions (except, perhaps, the last). However, it is hard to see how radioactive waste will benefit the community. Perhaps the real answer came at the Public Inquiry, when it was admitted that the benefits would be for the nation as a whole (and for Augean, of course) in getting rid of nuclear waste cheaply; we are simply the ones who have to carry the can.