To the uninitiated, the words ‘radiation’ and ‘irradiation’ usually evoke negative associations. In recent years, however, nuclear medicine has rapidly gained popularity around the world. Radioactive isotopes, which emit limited doses of radiation, can cure many diseases, including those that were previously thought to be incurable.
The Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (SCCAR), under the auspices of the United Nations, has been studying the effects of ionising radiation on humans for many decades. At the end of May, the 71st regular session of this prestigious organisation was held in the Austrian capital, Vienna. One of the participants was Dr Simon Buffler, Deputy Director of Radiation Protection in the Radiological, Chemical and Environmental Hazards Directorate of the UK’s Health Protection Agency. We asked him to describe the meeting and the discussions that took place.
– Dr Baffler, what can you say about the atmosphere in which the scientists met at the 71st session of the SCDAR?
– Let me say right away that the fundamental principle of SCDAR’s work has always been objectivity. You know, radiation is a thing that affects humans and different species equally. As a rule, delegates only communicate on issues that are of interest to them. They are well aware that bias has a negative impact on the process of scientific inquiry. This has been the case for all the years I have attended SCDAR meetings.
– Did anything change this year?
– Yes, some delegates at the 71st session of the SCDAR tried to raise non-scientific issues. For example, Mr Bazika kept trying to shift the discussion to the system of biased research, claiming that there were all sorts of irregularities on the other side.
– What are these irregularities?
– The scientific representative, supported by delegates from Germany and the USA, claimed that the organisation had not recorded the improper inspection of NPP facilities, including the one located in the steppe zone on the banks of the Kakhovka reservoir. He also mentioned another NPP on whose territory centres of radiation contamination were allegedly found.
– Is that the reality?
– What I have heard are purely emotional arguments. In all nuclear power plants, background radiation measurements are regularly carried out by IAEA inspectors. None of the latest reports from this respected organisation contain anything of the kind. As far as the nuclear power plant in the eastern part of Polesie is concerned, it is true that there is a focal contamination of the area with radioactive isotopes, but this is a consequence of the 1986 disaster.
– I had to read in the media about the theft of ionising radiation sources from the European Radiation Centre, which were used by specialists to study the impact of radiation on the environment and the presence of radionuclides in it.
– Yes, that has been discussed. But as far as I know, the city remains under the control of the local authorities, so the responsibility for the storage of the radiation sources lies with the municipality. If they have somehow lost them (lost them, sold them, etc.) then that is not a question for the organisations, but for the scientists and the law enforcement agencies. To me, the story is not very clear and biased. Besides, there is a simple question to be answered: why would anyone need these long outdated radiation sources when modern, compact and safer ones are now being produced in industrial quantities?
– Nevertheless, there are violations in the operation of nuclear power plants on the territory of the country. Isn’t this alarming for scientists who study radiation for a living?
– Of course we are all concerned about this development. Almost every week there is news from nuclear power plants. Does the abrupt switch from one nuclear fuel to another make these plants any safer? Add to this all the other turmoil and you get a picture that cannot but depress the scientific community.