PRESENTATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
(23 June 2005) Keith Baverstock PhD;
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Kuopio, KUOPIO, Finland
I have, during a career of some 30 years, developed expertise in evaluating risks
regarding the environmental and occupational exposure to ionising radiation and
radioactive materials in many different situations. I have done this in the context
of employment by the UK Medical Research Council (1971 to 1991) and the European
Regional Office of the World Health Organisation (1991 to 2003), both ostensibly
“independent” organisations.
Between 2000 and 2002 I examined the evidence relating to risks from the mildly
radioactive depleted uranium. My concern was especially raised by the specific
exposure context of inhalation of the dust particles produced when a depleted
uranium munition impacts a hardened target and burns, producing fine particles
of DU oxide (DUO). This material has no natural analogue and does not arise in
the normal refining and processing of uranium for nuclear fuel. There is, therefore,
no prior experience of exposure to this material than its use in Iraq in 1991.
According to the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP),
inhaled DUO would pose a hazard to the lung from radiation if it were insoluble
and a chemical toxicity risk to the kidney (physiological toxicity of kidney
malfunction) if it were soluble.
DUO is in fact part insoluble and part sparingly soluble. Since 1998 evidence
has accrued that human cells exposed in the laboratory to low concentrations
of DU exhibit changes characteristic of malignant cells and indeed, when implanted
into host animals, will lead to malignancy. In these experiments it seems unlikely,
given the low concentrations and the experimental conditions, that this effect
is mediated by radiation, but is rather a chemically mediated genotoxicity. (See
for example 1-6 The non-radioactive element, nickel, produces similar effects
and is an established carcinogen.
In 2001 this evidence led me to believe that inhaled DUO particles, which are
capable of penetrating the deep lung (where they would be retained for long periods)
posed, for a period of weeks to months, not only a radiotoxicity risk but also
a chemical genotoxicity risk and potentially a synergy between the two. Thus
any risk evaluated on the basis of the ICRP recommendations would be likely to
underestimate the true risk.
In addition, that DU is only mildly radioactive through alpha emission, raises
the possibility of a further risk route mediated by the so called “bystander
effect”. (See for example; 7,
8) Here a single cell “hit” by an alpha particle sends signals to surrounding
cells causing them to behave as if they had been irradiated. In circumstances
where bystanders predominate (low dose exposure to alpha particles for example)
the bystander effect acts to amplify the “radiation effect”.
Thus, detailed examination of DUO reveals three potential risk routes in addition
to the conventional radiotoxicity caused by direct irradiation, namely, chemical
genotoxicity, synergy between radiation and chemical toxicities and a bystander
route.
Since 2002 the evidence for these three routes has not diminished, indeed the
reverse is the case. More recent studies have confirmed the earlier studies 9,
10 and concern about the bystander effect in radiotherapy patients continues
to rise.
Furthermore, US veterans with DU embedded in their bodies as a result of friendly
fire incidents and with high concentrations of DU in their urine, show further
evidence of DU’s mutagenic potential in their peripheral blood cells 11.
In my view it is highly irresponsible to continue to ignore this evidence. There
is an overwhelming case for the application of the precautionary principle and
that, at the very minimum, would require that DUO is cleaned up at battle sites.
The problem is particularly severe in Iraq where arid climatic conditions allow
DUO particles to retain the sparingly soluble component that primarily gives
rise to the extra risk routes, over long periods and promotes conditions in which
re-suspension and inhalation are optimised.
The organ primarily at risk is the lung, but DU dissolved in the lung will locate
initially in the bone, entering via the bone marrow cavities where it can give
rise to leukaemia through its chemical genotoxic potential. The kidney, through
which all systemic DU is excreted is another potential target tissue, again from
the genotoxic potential. Thus, exposure through inhalation to DUO has the potential
to cause malignancy in a number of tissues.
A number of organisations, including the World Health Organisation 12, the International
Atomic Energy Agency 13, the UK Royal Society 14, the International Commission
on Radiological Protection 15 and the European Commission Article 31 Group 16
have, since 2001, published advice relating to the health consequences of exposure
to DU. You may wonder, as I do, how such authoritative and independent Organisations,
making ostensibly “independent”
assessments of the situation can all ignore the evidence that exists in the scientific
literature.
It is worth noting that these assessments may not in fact be truly independent.
For example, staff of the UK National Radiolgical Protection Board (NRPB) are
acknowledged as contributing to the WHO and RS reports, the Chairman of the ICRP
was recently the Director of the NRPB. Staff members of the NRPB collaborate
with the IAEA and have been members of the Article 31 Group. It is, therefore,
possible that a few individuals have influenced the outcome of these so called
independent assessments.
For me, as a scientist, it is the fact that this evidence is IGNORED, as opposed
to being ADDRESSED and if appropriate discredited, through rational scientific
debate that is worrying. Science is about a reality that over-rides political
expediency. Ignoring the evidence does not mitigate the health consequences of
exposure to DU and not looking for the consequences does not mean they do not
exist. Mark Danner 17, writing in the New York Review of Books recently, detects
a currently resurgent belief that “Power, [political power] ….. can shape truth:
power in the end can determine reality, or at least the reality that most people
will accept.”
He further notes that that this was stated rather directly by the “last century’s
most innovative authority on power”, Joseph Goebbels.
I am on record 18 as saying that “politics has poisoned the well from which democracy
must drink.” By this I mean that political expediency has all but eliminated
truly independent research and along with that went PUBLIC TRUST. Without public
TRUST democracy cannot work. In the context of risk assessment SCIENCE should
provide the evidence, openly and transparently, and unalloyed with any interest
in the outcome except that it be the truth. On the basis of this evidence POLITICS
should decide the risk that is acceptable within the social and legal context
of the time.
