Lynas waste thorium for nuclear energy: A real health threat

During the last few weeks the public has heard the wildly positive and optimistic views of both the government and some local scientists concerning the Lynas plant in Gebeng, Kuantan.

On 20th March, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Dr Maximus Ongkili told the Dewan Rakyat that the Lynas plant is safe and not harmful to public health. He said that the effluent from the plant contained low radioactive material. He explained that the effluent was not categorised as a radioactive material waste by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as it contained natural radioactive material (Ongkili: Proposed Gebeng Rare Earth Plant Is Safe, Bernama, 23 March 2011).
 

Unfortunately, he failed to give the effluent the proper name: TENORM.

TENORM and the fallacy of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)

Technologically-Enhanced, Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM) is produced when activities such as uranium mining, or sewage sludge treatment, concentrate or expose radioactive materials that occur naturally in ores, soils, water, or other natural materials.

In other words, this natural radioactive material has been made dangerous because it was removed from the ground and concentrated by mechanical and chemical processes. It has been exported by Australia and will be left in Malaysia as wastes by Lynas.

The radioactive material does not disappear once it reaches and is processed in Malaysia, and this dangerous material will be left in Malaysia. Malaysians will need to keep this securely away from humans for hundreds of thousands of years.

Lynas and AELB have made the TENORM sound like low level waste by merely diluting the waste until it conforms with IAEA regulations. Diluting does not make the radiation ‘go away’, and if the diluting liquid evaporates, you will again have concentrated radioactive material very harmful to people. The uranium and thorium will not evaporate with time.

Bear in mind that Australia has categorically stated that it will refuse to receive radioactive materials from other countries.

During the recent Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) public hearings on Lynas, nuclear physicist Dr. Abdul Rahman Omar reportedly praised the value of the thorium wastes i.e. one tonne of thorium ‘can generate 1 gigawatt of electricity a year which is worth RM 1 billion to RM 2 billion, multiply this by 2,000 tonnes a year that the factory will produce, then it is worth between RM2 trillion to RM4 trillion in electricity’. (Read nuclear energy and nuclear reactor).

He added that this technology dubbed Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) was mooted by the Americans at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, between 1968 and 1972 but was abandoned in favour of uranium due to its abundance.
‘China is now working very hard on using thorium for energy generation’. Alternatively, the gypsum by product produced from Lynas could be sold to China which would extract the thorium for energy production’, he said ('Lynas' thorium can generate RM4 trillion in energy', Nigel Aw, Malaysiakini, May 21, 2012 http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/198568).

However, according to an article published in the UK Guardian (23 June 2011), debunking thorium as a greener nuclear option, it states that ‘There is a significant sticking point to the promotion of thorium as the ‘great green hope’ of clean energy production: it remains unproven on a commercial scale. While it has been around since the 1950s (and an experimental 10MW LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) did run for five years during the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next  generation nuclear technology – theoretical’.

The article further states that although China has announced that it intends to develop a thorium MSR, nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), says ‘the world shouldn’t hold its breath’.

He added that ‘Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding’.

The article states that ‘Those who support renewables say they will have come so far in cost and efficiency terms by the time the technology is perfected and upscaled that thorium reactors will already be uneconomic. Indeed, if renewables had a fraction of nuclear's current subsidies they could already be light years ahead’.
  Health Risks of Thorium and other TENORMs

All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.

Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a ‘dishonest fantasy’ perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby. ‘Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – “so these are really U-233 reactors”,’ says Karamoskos.

‘This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors’, he adds, ‘because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years). Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste’.

Referring to the UK, The Guardian article says that ‘with billions of pounds already spent on nuclear research, reactor construction and decommissioning costs – dwarfing commitments to renewables – and proposed reform of the UK electricity markets apparently hiding subsidies to the nuclear industry, the thorium dream is considered by many to be a dangerous diversion’.

Citing Jean McSorley senior consultant for Greenpeace’s nuclear campaign: ‘Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested, and none of the main players is interested. Thorium reactors are no more than a distraction’.

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who is a radiation expert, thorium reactors also produce a lot of Americium, which is much more toxic than plutonium. ‘I do not think that, even if thorium some day becomes a viable option, they will ever want to separate out the thorium from the Malaysian waste, where it has been significantly diluted so that it appears to be below regulatory concern. You cannot say it is a valuable commodity and also release it as of no concern! Moreover, you are not dealing with pure thorium, but with radioactive material with a long list of radioactive decay products some of which are very radioactive. New reactors will get their thorium from India or Australia. Malaysia would be considered a secondary or tertiary source’ she states.

In other words, there is no economic possibility or feasibility that anyone will use the Malaysian waste for thorium when there are large direct sources of thorium to be had immediately in Australia or India.

Dr. Bertell is a nuclear health expert who has done extensive research on nuclear health impacts all over the world including the Marshall Islands, India, Germany, Ukraine, US and Canada. She has been a consultant to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency. She was a key witness during the Bukit Merah court hearings.

However, contrary to the world experts, the local medical and nuclear so-called experts have recently testified to the PSC that the thorium produced from Lynas was too low to pose significant health dangers.

In contrast to what the PSC has been told by the local so-called experts, the health impacts of radiation are not benign. In a comparative study by V. T. Padmanabhan et al of inhabitants of regions of normal and high background radiation in Kerala from 1988 – 1994, the researchers showed that thorium health damage from monazite sands was evident (International Journal of Health Services Vol. 34 No. 3 pp483-515, 2004).

The study revealed that there was a high incidence of heritable anomalies in the high background region (HBRR). There was a statistically significant increase of Down syndrome, autosomal dominant anomalies and multifactorial diseases and an insignificant increase of autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive anomalies in the HBRR.

The main findings of the study have been summarised as follows:
• The relative risk for chromosomal, autosomal dominant, and multifactorial anomalies is higher in the HBRR.

• For congenital anomalies (WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, ICD 740–757), there is no difference between the areas. Within the study and control areas, ‘nonmigrant’ couples have 51 percent and 61 percent excess relative risk (ERR), respectively, in comparison to ‘migrant’ couples. The ERR among the related versus the unrelated couples is 96 percent in the HBRR and 41 percent in the NRR (normal radiation region).

• Rates of multifactorial anomalies and multiple deaths are higher in the HBRR. Again, the related and the nonmigrant couples have higher risk than the migrants and the unrelated, respectively. The rates among the migrants in both areas are more or less the same.

• If all untoward outcomes other than Down syndrome and Mendelian anomalies are grouped together, 6.4 percent of the unrelated ‘migrants’ in the NRR are affected versus 16.4 percent of the related couples in the HBRR.

The authors suspect that exposure to radiation was genetically significant. ‘Besides the external radiation from beta particles and gamma rays from the soil, there is the possibility of internal exposure through air, water, and food. Soman (27) estimated the per capita daily uptake of radium-228 by the study population as 4.72 Bq. Based on the average consumption of sardines, Van de Laar (18) estimated the daily intake as less than 0.01 Bq per person. Since the coastal land is less fertile and farming and husbandry are restricted to small pockets, the internal exposure is mainly from poultry products, fish, and accidental ingestion of fine grains of monazite in childhood’.

They revealed that the mean cumulative exposure to external radiation during the reproductive life of people living in the high-background radiation regions is 18 rads for women and 22 rads for men, six times the exposure in the normal radiation region.

Conclusion

Thorium from Lynas is TENORM and a radioactive waste which has serious health risks.

We urge the PSC and the Government to seriously weigh the published and reviewed scientific findings and views of the international experts quoted above before decisions on Lynas are made.

We strongly urge that Lynas be NOT allowed to operate in Malaysia.
Letter to the Editor - 11 June 2012

Nuclear power should not be the option for Malaysia

The Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) oppose the development of nuclear power plants in Malaysia.

Our former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had expressed his objection of nuclear energy in Malaysia and had brought up the issue of dumping of radioactive waste in Perak.  However the former PM is reportedly not aware where the waste was buried. His ignorance is indeed unfortunate because as a leader, Dr Mahathir should have known the location of the hotspot, especially since it is still regarded unsafe.

The long term storage facility of the radioactive waste is located in the Kledang Range, Perak. The waste was produced from the Asian Rare Earth (ARE) factory in Bukit Merah New Village near Ipoh. The ARE factory began operations in 1982 to extract yttrium (a rare earth) from monazite (obtained from amang, a tin mining by-product). The waste which is radioactive is the property of the Perak State Government.
A long struggle for environmental health and justice ensued as the Bukit Merah Village community was affected by radiation from improper waste disposal. Cases of childhood leukemia, cancer, miscarriages, lead poisoning were higher here compared to the expected incidence in Malaysia. The ARE factory was finally closed down in the 1990s but its toxic legacy remains in the form of the radioactive waste.
With such a bad track record and its tremendous impact to the environment, public health and safety we are very concerned that the Malaysian government is even pondering to build a nuclear power plant in the country.
Following are some of the reasons why we should not opt for nuclear power which is an expensive, polluting, dangerous source of energy:
Health impacts
Nuclear reactors have serious environmental and public health impacts. Radioactive air and water pollution is released through the routine operation of all nuclear reactors. A wide range of radioactive isotopes are released with varying radioactive and chemical properties – some toxic, some not, some more radioactive than others, some lasting minutes, some lasting billions of years.
A study in Mainz, Germany shows the risk of getting cancer, particularly leukemia, is increasing for children growing up in the neighborhood of a nuclear power station.   The result showed a significantly higher risk to get cancer if the children lived within a circle of less than 5 km around a nuclear power plant. There were 77 cases of cancer (60% more than expected in normal statistical values) and 37 cases of leukemia (117% more than expected).          
Radioactive waste
The nuclear chain begins with uranium mining, a polluting activity that devastates large areas. Uranium ore can contain as little as 500 grammes recoverable uranium per million grammes of earth. Enormous amounts of rock have to be dug up, crushed and chemically processed to extract the uranium. The remaining wastes or ‘tailings’, still contain large amounts of radioactivity and are often stored in poor condition, resulting in the contamination of surface and groundwater.
Radioactive wastes are produced continually in reactors.  High-level nuclear waste (also called irradiated or “spent” fuel) is more radioactive than when the fuel rods were loaded into the reactor. This waste is so lethal that standing near it without shielding causes fatality within minutes. This waste is hazardous for years and no technology exists to keep it isolated for long.
Irradiated fuel rods are stored in storage pools inside reactor buildings.  If someone accidentally drained the water from the pool, the "spent fuel" would spontaneously burst into flame and burn out of control for days, releasing clouds of highly-radioactive material all the while. Besides this, in case of leakage, what is going to happen to the radioactively contaminated water? Where will the massive volume of water outflow?
Another type of waste is low-level radioactive waste which is all other radioactive waste from reactors.  Large amounts of this waste has to be buried and over the years may leak and contaminate groundwater.
Reactor accidents and leaks
Of all electricity generation technologies, nuclear power is one which is capable of catastrophic accidents. Does Malaysia have the capacity to deal with a catastrophic event such as a reactor meltdown or leak? Is the public willing to accept this risk when cheaper and safer energy alternatives are available?  
Although the probability of a nuclear explosion is minor, there is a significant risk of core meltdown and for steam and chemical explosions. This would lead to a release of a large fraction of its radioactive inventory. For example in 1979 a combination of technical faults and operator errors led to loss of coolant and a partial meltdown of the core of the nuclear power station at Three Mile Island in the USA where limited quantity of radiation was released.
The worst accident at a nuclear power station was at Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986. A combination of operator errors, inadequate safety procedures and poor reactor design led to explosions of steam and hydrogen that released vast quantities of radioactive materials over the Ukraine, Belarus and much of Europe.  Millions of people in the Northern hemisphere have suffered and will continue to suffer from the Chernobyl catastrophe due to exposure to radiation.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reported that at least 27 of America's 104 licensed reactors are now leaking radioactive tritium. The worst case is reported to be Entergy's Vermont Yankee. High levels of contamination have been found in test wells around the reactor, and experts believe the Connecticut River is at serious risk.
Water use harms aquatic life
Reactors require huge amounts of cooling water, which is why they are often located near rivers, lakes or oceans. The initial devastation of marine life and ecosystems stems from the powerful intake of water into the nuclear reactor. Marine life, ranging from fish larvae to microscopic planktonic organisms vital to the ocean ecosystem, is sucked irresistibly into the reactor cooling system. Some of these animals are killed when trapped against filters, grates, and other structures. An equally huge volume of wastewater is discharged at temperatures hotter than the water into which it flows and this would also be detrimental to aquatic life.
Expensive
Nuclear power is the most expensive form of power and could not exist without massive subsidies. As it is so expensive to build, the price of the electricity they produce would be exorbitant too. Besides this, a great deal of money has to be spent and accumulate large amounts of interest before there is any revenue.  Would this cost ultimately be transferred to consumers through a price hike?  
Nuclear energy would also be heavily subsidised but most of these subsidies are hidden. For instance the nuclear industry does not pay the full cost of insuring against a catastrophic accident such as in Chernobyl.   Another subsidy for the industry is when the federal government normally pick ups the tab when accidents or leakages occur.  
Green house gas emissions
Nuclear energy proponents state that green house gas emissions can be reduced. Nuclear reactors, which produce energy based on the fissioning of uranium atoms, do not directly emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). Nevertheless each step of the nuclear fuel cycle, right from uranium ore mining and processing, to fuel fabrication and reactor construction, from spent fuel reprocessing to eventual decommissioning and waste storage, involves emissions, including GHG.  
Alternatives
Nuclear energy is not necessary.  We must improve energy efficiency and reduce high carbon activities in areas such as transport.  Energy experts at the Rocky Mountain Institute and elsewhere estimate that a dollar invested in increased efficiency could save up to seven times as much energy as one invested in nuclear plants can produce, while producing 10 times as many permanent jobs.
Worldwide, people have realized that there are safer, cheaper, renewable alternatives to nuclear. Combining energy efficiency measures and renewable energy development would eliminate any justification for nuclear power.  Thus we strongly urge the Malaysian government to cancel its plan of developing nuclear power plant.
Letter to the Editor - 20th May 2010

 

Mobile phone should carry cancer warnings

Manufacturers should put labels on phones and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. The warnings should also warn that the most vulnerable users like children and pregnant women keep the devices away from their head and body.

Over the last few decades, there has been rapid worldwide development of wireless technology, including increasing use of wireless telephones communication.

This has raised concerns about health risks, primarily increased risk for brain tumours, owing to the proximity of the brain to the radiation antenna with the potential for absorbing comparatively large amounts of electromagnetic energy.

Latest studies led by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden have shown that using mobile phones for 10 years or more significantly increases the risk of brain tumours.

 

Other significant findings by the Hardell group are that:

 

-- For every 100 hours of mobile phone use the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%.

 

-- For every year of mobile phone use the risk of brain cancer increases by 8%.

 

-- After 10 or more years of digital mobile phone use, there is a 280% greater risk of brain cancer.

 

According to a detailed report by the International EMF Collaborative, which reviewed Hardell’s research, their findings are precisely what would be expected if mobile phones lead to brain tumours, in particular:

 

-- The higher the cumulative hours of mobile phone use, the higher the risk.

 

-- The greater the number of years since first mobile phone use, the greater the risk.

 

-- The more power radiated from the mobile phone during use, the more the risk.

 

-- The greater the exposure (phone use on the same side of the head as the tumour), the greater the risk.

 

-- The younger the user, the higher the risk.

 

Studies have also found that young people today are 5 times more likely to get brain cancer if they are mobile phone users.

 

Children are especially vulnerable to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-Fi and other devices because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner, the radiation penetrates deeper into the brain.
Professor Hardell says those who started using mobile phones young, were also 5 times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, which are benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness, whereas people who were in their 20s before using handsets were only 50% more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas.
In another earlier report, Mobile Phones and Health, Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the national Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that there are 4 studies which have caused concern. One 10-year study in Sweden suggested that heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear, evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones and brain, while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base stations, while a project supported by the European Union had shown evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones.
A number of scientists have discovered that mobile phone radiation causes permanent damage to DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer.
According to one report, there is an obvious disturbance of communication between cells which is a prerequisite for the uninhibited proliferation of cells that is characteristic for cancer development occurs at mobile power levels just a few watts per metre.
Equally alarming, the report explains that these effects can take place within the brain. The body normally has a self protective mechanism to prevent toxins from entering the brain, but mounting evidence shows that mobile phone frequencies can cause the blood-brain barrier to break down. Besides cancer, mobile phones have been linked to a number of other health problems:

 

-- reduced sperm quality

-- memory impairment

-- weakened bones

-- autism

-- symptoms of electro sensitivity, such as tiredness, stress, headache, anxiety, concentration difficulties and sleep disturbances

 

In view of the dangers associated with mobile phones, CAP calls on the Government to:
-- require mobile phones to carry warnings that they increase the risks of brain cancer
-- issue a warning to parents to ban their children under the age of 12 years from using mobile phones
-- run campaigns to educate and warn the public of the dangers of radiation exposure from mobile phones
Meanwhile CAP reiterates its call to consumers to refrain from using mobile phones unless in an emergency and if you have to use it, use the speakerphone function so the phone is 20 cm away from the head. Use landlines wherever possible.
Read about how mobile phones fry your brain, raise brain cancer risks and damage your DNA in the CAP Guide, How Unsafe Is Your Mobile Phone

Risks from radiological & nuclear medicine examination

 

The basis of present day medicine is shared decision making between the doctor and the patient. Empowering a patient to make informed decisions about their treatment is a fundamental principle in medical professionalism. But is this principle translated into clinical practice in so far as radiological and nuclear medicine examinations are concerned?
In general, patients undergoing radiological and nuclear examinations receive no, very little, or inaccurate information regarding the risks involved. Take, for example, the CT Scans and X-rays. They are so common that they are used as if they don’t pose any risk.

The total number of imaging examinations (use of nuclear and X-rays), for instance, account for 2 billion per year. Angiograms are performed routinely by cardiologists; radioisotope studies are common; the use of contrast mediums like iodine is also routine and now we have the Helical CT Scans which carry a high risk of cancer or death.
 

As every examination of a radiological or nuclear medicine nature involves the administration of radiation, there is the inherent long-term risk of cancer and yet, the patient is rarely, if ever, informed of the associated risks.  
Currently, doctors tend to opt for 1 of 3 choices: no mention of risk; understatement of risk or full disclosure of risk.
No mention of risk
Some doctors choose not to mention any risks involved. These may be very real and quite substantial but they remain unsaid and unheard, the main reason being that radiologists are too busy too explain the risks and to get an informed consent. However, the patient’s rights are not just overshadowed by the factor of efficiency but also that of a paternalistic attitude of “doctor knows best”.
Understatement of risk
In nuclear medicine, the standard practice is to obtain a written informed consent. The only problem is that the quality of the information given to the patients is suspect. Doctors tend to give imprecise statements such as, “A nuclear medicine examination is safe, with an irradiation corresponding to a simple radiograph”.
The attitude is to suggest that the examinations are safe and simple. A patient might believe that a simple radiograph would be a chest X-ray, the simplest and commonest radiological examination.
In reality, the dose exposure could be very much higher. While the purpose of such imprecise statements might be to reassure or prevent unnecessary concern about an unavoidable risk, the fact remains that the associated risks are underestimated and the patient’s autonomy is eroded.
Full disclosure
Full disclosure involves informing the patient of any possible risk however small. It also means that the patient has clearly understood the benefits vs the risks involved in the radiological examination or procedure. He then makes an informed choice which means that the consent obtained is an informed one (informed consent). However, only a few doctors, if any, provide full disclosure.
Reasons for the failure to communicate the risks
It must be understood that failure to communicate the risks of radiological and nuclear medicine to patients is violating patient autonomy. There could be various reasons for this failure, but this is no excuse as the risks are real and may be substantial depending on the type of procedure carried out.

Some of the reasons for failing to communicate risks include:

1.    The practitioner has a morbid fear of losing his patient if he alarms him. A simple example is to label drugs scheduled as poisons with a poison label. Many doctors opt not to do so as this might scare the patient from consuming the drug. What more if you talk of cancers, leukaemia and death as a result of irradiation!

2.    Another factor in carrying out a hazardous procedure without a clear idea of the benefits is the fear that if you don’t carry out that procedure, another doctor would be willing to.  The following remark from a senior surgeon that if he didn’t remove the appendix from a patient complaining of abdominal pain, someone else would do it even though the appendix might not be the primary cause of the problem would serve to illustrate this point.

3.    The terminology used in radiation protection can be mind-boggling even to doctors and specialist in other fields. Terms like “megabecquerels”, “roentgen”, “millicuries”, “millirems”, “micro-sieverts”, “source-related dose cconstraints” and “co-efficient for stochastic effects” are employed in this branch of medicine which sets standards for the safe use of irradiation. The communication between doctors themselves is lost in this quagmire of gobbledygook. Unfortunately, the end result is that risks get ignored at the expense of the poor patients.

As it is essential to communicate risks to patients, one way out is to simplify the language such that the layman understands it and in so doing will be able to give an informed consent whether he wishes to undergo the procedure or not.

Hazards of low-level radiation

Below we reproduce Chapter 5 of "Wasted Lives: Radioactive Poisoning in Bukit Merah" for our readers. It shows the many ill-effects of low-level radiation and its impacts on the residents in Bukit Merah.

What is frightening about radiation is that you cannot see it, feel it, hear it or taste it. You do not have to get into the area of a radioactive dump, dig the soil, bathe in it, or throw it over your head to get hurt.

We do not even have to go near the source. Radioactive gases like radon and thoron can travel with the wind and settle in the lungs of people living hundreds of miles away. Another important route is the food chain. Plant life growing near the radioactive source accumulates radioactive elements in its system. Eaten by cows, it is passed through cows' milk to humans. A similar process occurs for fruits, vegetables and fish if radioactive waste is dumped in a river near farms.
Low-level radiation can be hazardous because it attacks the human body at its most basic unit — the cell. This building block of life absorbs food, excretes waste, builds up proteins and replicates itself. When it is irradiated, the damage is harboured and accumulated in the body for years before ill effects become apparent. Scientists have long known about the harmful effects of radiation on bone marrow which results in the lowering of resistance to disease as the immune system is depressed. Radiation exposure can also lead to cancer and genetic damage which is passed on as birth defects or cancer in the next gener¬ation. The most common form of cancer is leukaemia but radiation-induced cancers can also develop in the pancreas, brain, lung, kidney and large intestines — that is, the soft organs. Blood disorders like aplastic anaemia, benign tumours, cataract, rapid aging and lowered fertility are the other effects.
How many people are aware that ionising radiation can also cause spontaneous abortions and stillbirth, as well as increased chances of getting heart disease, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, asthma or severe allergies? Let us say a young child is given a series of X-rays. As a result, the level of white blood cells may undergo a temporary depression. Two weeks later, he may catch influenza or some other infectious disease. Would his parents have linked the X-raying with his ailment?
There is no “safe” level of radiation as far as these effects are concerned. Even a very small dose has its impact.
When a radioactive substance decays, there are periodical explosions with release of energy. Such bursts of energy in ionising radiation kill or harm human cells in the following way: When radiation penetrates the body, it strips away electrons from the atoms that constitute the body cells. As a result of the loss, these atoms become positively charged. This process is called ionisation. The free radicals now try to make up for their electron loss by “attacking” other molecules. They can, for example, inter¬act with water molecules. In the process, unusual mole¬cules are created which are highly active. They in turn can react with the chemical constituents of the body cells. In the chain reaction set up, the cell thus gradually disinte¬grates, leaving the way open for cancer or other ills.
Genetic effects
Each cell has a nucleus. Within the nucleus are chromosomes containing genetic material called DNA which contains the instructions for the building and functioning of the body.
If the unusual, highly active molecules produced as a result of ionisation due to radiation react with portions of the DNA, the chromosomes could be harmed. A damaged DNA can pass on distorted messages to the cell, causing mutation during reproduction.

Some studies have shown that doses of a few rads accumulated over an extended period can result in an increase in the number of chromosome abnormalities. Also, many laboratory studies with plants and animals have shown that radiation can induce genetic defects in direct proportion to the dose received.
Damage could cause the cell to grow uncontrollably as a cancer cell. A cell divides to replicate itself in the process of growth. What could happen after irradiation is the destruction of the cell's ability to rest after division. As a result, the cell continues to divide unchecked. If enough cells become affected, then tumours are formed, composed of several millions of mutated cells. Or leukaemia may result with the abnormal proliferation of white blood cells. Or an organ itself becomes cancerous. The process usually takes years for the cancer to fully develop after the initial exposure.
The cell is most sensitive to irradiation when it is dividing. Thus foetuses, babies and young children whose cells are rapidly multiplying are most vulnerable. The bone marrow, where blood cells are formed, is also especially vulnerable.
If the cell in question is a reproductive cell in the sperm or ovary, the genetic material could produce mutations which are then transmitted to the next generation. A damaged chromosome could, for example, result in the birth of a child with brain damage or deformed hands. Or. if the damage is too extensive, stillbirth or miscarriage could occur. Radiation exposure in fathers has been shown to result in cancer in their children. Many studies have shown abnormally high levels of childhood leukaemia around the United Kingdom's nuclear installations where workers are exposed to higher than background levels of radiation. A 1990 study by epidemiologist Professor Martin Gardener of the Medical Research Council of Britain found that blood cancer in children around Sellafield's nuclear power station in Cumbria was nearly 10 times the nation¬al average. An exposure to 100 millisieverts or more was associated with a six- to eight-fold increase in risk of leu¬kaemia in the workers' children.
Teratogenic effects
It has been observed in humans as well as laboratory animals that low-level radiation can cause teratogenic damage, that is, malformation of the embryo or foetus. For this reason medical or industrial exposure of pregnant women is disallowed nowadays. In fact doctors recommend that elective fluoroscopy or other abdominal exposure of women of childbearing age be restricted to the first 10 days after the start of menstruation to avoid irradiating unsuspected foetuses.
The foetus is up to a thousand times more sensitive to radiation than adults. The unborn child is most vulnerable because of its rapid rate of cell division. It is most sensitive during the first trimester of pregnancy (especially in the first two weeks after conception), a period when most women are not yet aware of their pregnancy. At this stage it is 15 times more vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer than when it is six to nine months old in the womb.
When rapid growth is taking place in the different organs of the foetus, the effect of radiation may be to slow down growth. Should this occur in the brain or nervous system, microcephaly. central nervous system defects, mental retardation and behavioural problems could result after birth.
According to the US Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation in its 1990 BEIR V report, “Within the critical gestational age period of 8 to 15 weeks, the prevalence of severe mental retardation can be linearly related to the absorbed dose received by the foetus." In other words there is no safe dose. BEIR V also states that –“radiation has been observed to increase the incidence of tumours in the nervous system in humans and laboratory animals ... Although the dose-incidence relation is uncertain, the data indicate the brain to be relatively sensitive to the carcinogenic effect of radiation."
Other congenital defects like blindness or deafness could occur as well as cancer in later years.
Studies show that children exposed to radiation like X- rays while they were in the womb have a much higher chance of developing cancer in the first 10 years of life. For instance, the pioneering work of epidemiologist and paediatrician Dr Alice Stewart on childhood cancers estimates that 53 per cent of the childhood cancer of children aged four to seven years are due to exposure to additional ionising radiation during pregnancy. According to her, exposure to extra radiation in the first trimester of pregnancy increased the risk six times.
Before Dr Stewart's finding, X-rays had routinely been used to detect multiple births or abnormal conditions in the uterus, and to determine the outlines of the mother's pelvis as an aid to delivery. Her findings in the fifties raised doubts, even controversy, about this practice of X- raying pregnant women — fuelled then by the belief that radiation exposure was safe so long as a threshold (of about 10 rads) was not exceeded.
However, despite confirmation from other studies, little had been done to warn the public, even in the twenty years after Dr Stewart published her research. In the United States, Dr Karl Morgan, founder of the profession of radiation health physics, stated at a 1980 hearing for radiation victims that he and other scientists had been fighting for years to stop the practice of giving X-rays in the pelvic and abdominal region to women of childbearing age except during emergency situations and except during the 10-day interval following the beginning of menstruation. The failure of the X-ray industry to comply was, he said, "one of the biggest problems in reducing the harmful effects of radiation".
It was only in 1980 that the Bureau of Radiological Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology in the United States launched a large public education programme, warning of the damaging effects of radiation (among other things) on pregnancies.
Somatic effects
When enough cells are damaged by irradiation, causing, for example, an organ system made up of these cells to malfunction, the body as a whole then experiences an illness. There is no threshold below which one can assume one is safe. Exposure at any level of ionising radiation causes some degree of damage, while it simultaneously creates a long-term risk of cancer like leukaemia. Children are more at risk since they are two to four times more sensitive to radiation than adults, say, between 25 and 30 years old. Also at high risk are old people who have weakened immune systems. Women are estimated to be doubly sensitive to radiation than men because of their predominance in getting breast and thyroid cancers.
In the case of the radioactive waste produced by ARE, thorium itself is a powerful cancer-causing agent and toxic substance. Even minute amounts of ingested thorium are dangerous because of persistent alpha radiation to the surrounding tissue in the body. Scientists have found that the cancer risk for each rad of alpha radiation recorded is 20 times that for a same level of gamma rays and X-rays.
After absorption thorium is stored in the liver and spleen as well as the lymph nodes, bone, lung and kidney. The victim can develop leukaemia and bone marrow failure. It is the bone marrow or the core of the bones that produces new blood cells for the body. Radiation reduces the ability of the marrow to produce these cells. Thus fewer blood cells circulate in the body. As a result, the ability to carry oxygen or fight infections is lessened.
Radon gas, released in the milling of monazite or mining of uranium, can cause lung cancer if inhaled. The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States takes the position that there is no safe level of radon exposure. Studies in many countries show a relation between the incidence of lung cancer in uranium miners and cumulative exposure of radiation from radon and its daughters. In one study of 700 uranium miners in the southwest of the United States, researcher Dr Victor Archer of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found a ten-fold increase in cancer risk among these workers.
It is too early for lung cancer cases to show up in Bukit Merah because the average latency period, that is, the period between exposure to radon and the onset of the disease, is about 20 years.
Inhaled radon and its daughters become attached to the lining of the lungs. They can pass through the lung tissue and enter the bloodstream, irradiating the surrounding tissue. Meanwhile, the radon decays to radioactive lead, bismuth and polonium, among others. The short- and long-lived radon daughters become selectively deposited in various organs. The kidney is the favourite target for polonium and bismuth. Animal experiments show renal lesions as well as a shortened lifespan.
Another decay product, radioactive lead which has a half-life of 21 years, lodges itself in bone, remaining for almost a lifetime. It kills the white blood cells needed by the body for fighting infection. The result is an abnormal blood count which can lead to blood diseases like aplastic anaemia. Also, the immune system is depressed. Thus children exposed to radiation are more susceptible to infections than children who are not. This finding has been illustrated by Dr Jayabalan's survey of Bukit Merah children.
Several studies have also found an apparent increase in the rate of coronary vessel diseases in populations exposed to radiation. A study of the Indian Rare Earth in Kerala found that the chance of its workers dying of heart disease was 2.5 times that of workers in other factories. Uranium miners face a similarly increased incidence of heart diseases.
Radiation effects in Bukit Merah
Although it has only been a decade since ARE began production in Bukit Merah, already the effects of radiation have been demonstrated in the community there. Not only do its children have low white blood counts, they have been found to be more susceptible to infections. The leukaemia rate among them is 35 times above the observed rate in Peninsular Malaysia. In addition, about 14 per cent of Bukit Merah mothers in the period 1982-86 experienced unexplained miscarriages or perinatal and neonatal deaths, while the rate of perinatal deaths in 1982 was about three times the national average rate.
Dr Rosalie Bertell, President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, warned the court at the ARE hearing in 1988. “I think that there are already signs of poor public health in Bukit Merah. I do not think that we should wait for dead bodies to appear before we begin to take action against ARE."
Besides closing down ARE, what authorities can do is to re-evaluate safety standards for radiation exposure which are not stringent enough and which do not take into account public health.