ATOMIC Energy Authority officials at Dounreay did not tell the
Government body investigating childhood leukemia around the plant in
1987 of the existence of its controversial nuclear waste shaft, let
alone the explosion in it in 1977.
In the damning report published on Tuesday, the Committee on Medical
Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) expressed serious
concern that its Second Report published in 1988 on childhood leukemia
did not have all the relevant evidence.
Accusing the UKAEA of having neglected its reponsibilities, Professor
Bryn Bridges, chairman of Comare, confirmed yesterday that the agency
had wrongly led it to believe that the source of radioactive particles
found on the foreshore had come from an accidental spillage in 1965.
Part of the Comare Second Report states: ''We asked the UKAEA for
details of any unplanned or experimental releases which had not been
included in the discharges showed in tables A3 (2-4) and which might
have had off-site radiological consequences.
''UKAEA have reviewed their records and provided us with the details
which are at A3.3 in the Annexe. This also includes their assessment of
any environmental impact from these incidents.''
Tables A3, however, reveal no mention of the waste shaft.
Professor Bridges said yesterday: ''I think that the committee is
certainly concerned that the conclusions it came to in its Second Report
might possibly have been different if it had known certain facts that it
didn't know.
''It is not so much that the UKAEA didn't tell us about the shaft.
They led us to believe that the source of the radioactive particles
found on the foreshore was an accidential spillage in 1965 which had
been hosed down a drain in the road by the local fire brigade. That is
where they said the particles were coming from.''
Professor Bridges said Comare had begun to doubt the veracity of that
information after studies between 1992 and 1994 about links between
child leukemia and use of beaches around Dounreay, adding that it later
transpired that the UKAEA had already had a number of possible sources
at the time of the Second Report on Dounreay.
''They allowed us to go on thinking that the 1965 spillage was the
source of the particles even when they themselves knew that there were
other possible sources which were more likely, one of which was the
shaft.
''They did not know the source themselves and they did not tell Comare
that. A group such as ours can only do its job properly if it is given
all the information it requires and there is no doubt that we were
severely hindered.''
He continued: ''We also feel they neglected their responsibilities
because, having got a number of potential hypotheses, they did not take
that any further.
''Would it have made any difference to our final conclusions? The
answer is no. We don't think that these particles on the foreshore are
the cause of the excess childhood leukemia. However, if we had known at
the time that the source of the particles was not established we would
certainly have made strong recommendations to find the source and
eliminate that.''
Professor Bridges added that, although the current UKAEA management
had been very helpful, ''I would say that the UKAEA's attitude in the
1980s was very unprofessional -- much lower than one would expect from a
body as theoretically responsible as them.''
Dounreay's management yesterday responded to Comare's criticism by
saying management at the time had given the group all relevant
information in terms of Comare's specific requests.
Mr Ian Shepherd, a Dounreay spokesman, stressed that the current
management was not at Dounreay at the time but had studied all the
records available to their predecessors and believed there had been no
intention to mislead Comare in 1987.
He said he was unable to say why there had been no reference to the
shaft in drawings made available to Comare but suggested that this may
have been because Comare had asked for information about active
facilities while the shaft ceased to be in active use in 1977.
''You have to measure what was provided against what was asked for by
Comare,'' he added.
Mr Shepherd said Comare had requested details of unplanned discharges
and Dounreay responded by giving details of such discharges, including
reference to one which was linked to metallic particles which had
occasionaly been found on the Dounreay foreshore.
''The Comare request therefore was in connection with any unplanned
discharges and was not a dedicated investigation into the metallic
particles found on the beach.
''Information provided by the authority to Comare at that time was
therefore judged to be sufficient for the purpose of that inquiry.
According to records at Dounreay, when Comare visited the site in
November 1987 they received a presentation which included a section on
beach particles and in the notes of that meeting it is stated 'their
composition and the methods by which they might have been deposited was
described.'
''This, therefore, suggests that Comare were told of several possible
sources, although we believe the breach of a plastic pipeline in 1965
was at that time considered to be the most likely source of the
particles. We have no doubt that this opinion would have been passed on
to Comare.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article