Radiation Health Effects URLS

  • #26
One More Time

Hope this sinks in this time !!!

Subject: RADIATION BIOLOGICAL EFFECT--DR. BERTELL


http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html

Radiation and thyroid disease:

http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=26069 [Broken]

TWO BULLET ROULETTE

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030922&s=bivens [Broken]



Eminent nuclear chemist and cardiologist Dr. John Gofman
wrote the following letter, May 11, 1999:

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720

LETTER OF CONCERN

To Whom It May Concern,

During 1942, I led "The Plutonium Group" at the University of California, Berkeley, which managed to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from irradiated uranium. [Plutonium-239 had previously been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin McMillan]. During subsequent decades, I have studied the biological effects of ionizing radiation---- including the alpha particles emitted by the decay of plutonium.

By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman 1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997, "Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]

It follows from such evidence that citizens worldwide have a strong biological basis for opposing activities which produce an appreciable risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium and other radioactive pollution at any level. The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources ---which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.

Very truly yours,

[signed]
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States: 215 atmospheric tests + 815 underground tests = 1,030
USSR: 219 atmospheric tests + 496 underground tests = 715
UK: 21 atmospheric tests + 24 underground tests = 45
France: 50 atmospheric tests + 160 underground tests = 210
China: 23 atmospheric tests + 22 underground tests = 45

The grand total of global atmospheric tests = 528

Source: Page 52, "Atomic Audit, the Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940," Stephen Schwartz, Editor, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington D.C., 1998.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plutonium Fallout

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/RadxPlutonium.html

Hardy, E.P., Krey, P.W. and Volchok, H.L. (February 16, 1973). Global
inventory and distribution of fallout plutonium. Nature. 241. pg. 444-445.

The following letter is one of the most important ever published in the
British journal Nature, providing baseline data about the dispersal of
weapons testing-derived fallout plutonium as well as plutonium isotopes
derived from the 1964 satellite accident. Hardy, et. al. used the
reporting unit of mCi/km2. This can be converted directly to the more
understandable (for the layperson) reporting unit of pCi/m2. Few areas
in the northern hemisphere contain less than 1 pCi/m2 of fallout 239Pu,
1/2 T 24,240 years. Even though this fallout is stratospheric rather
than tropospheric, the higher values in soils are correlated to some
extent with locations having the greatest annual precipitation, as well
as mid-latitude locations. One to four pCi/m2 of fallout 239Pu is the
minimum baseline level of plutonium contamination in the northern
hemisphere. More recent research identifies numerous areas with much
higher levels of plutonium in soils, see especially the data collected
pertaining to the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado.

Below is a scan of page 444 followed by a more readable enlargement of
the table. See RAD 8:5 Anthropogenic radioactivity: Baseline data:
Plutonium and Americium for more comments on this article and other
information on plutonium fallout. For more information on this
satellite accident, consult RAD 11:9 Anthropogenic radioactivity: Major
plume source points: Nuclear Powered Satellite Accidents.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Scans/naturepg1.jpg



New Book by Dr. Rosalie Bertell:

http://www.iicph.org/planet_earth.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
My opinion is that theroyprocess is at least somewhat insane. theroyprocess, why do you completely ignore every question that has been posed to you?

- Warren
 
  • #28
Frivolous Questions

I don't bother with frivolous questions that pose a confabulation.
You are selling the pro-nuke bias with the typical misinformation
and insane logic. You say radiation exists, therefor it's OK for you
to murder the whole world with it...on tax payers money!

You can't fool all of the people...all of the time.
 
  • #29
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39


Originally posted by theroyprocess
I don't bother with frivolous questions that pose a confabulation.
A... confabulation? I'm not sure this is the word you intended to use.
You are selling the pro-nuke bias with the typical misinformation
and insane logic.
I'm not selling anything. I'm on the side of virtually everyone else on this forum: man-made radiation exposure is, except in places like Chernobyl, entirely negligible when compared to the natural background. That's it. I'm not pro-nuke, and I'm not spreading any falsehoods. I also don't feel my logic is insane. While it's not proof that you're insane, the fact that virtually everyone else on this forum thinks you are is telling.
You say radiation exists, therefor it's OK for you
to murder the whole world with it...on tax payers money!
Can you please reference the passage in which I said it was okay to "murder the whole world with it?" This really doesn't seem like something I would say, so I'd like you to provide a reference to my statement.
You can't fool all of the people...all of the time.
Why do you think I intend to fool anyone? I am not part of any conspiracy, despite your apparent paranoia.

- Warren
 
  • #30
Denial

Chroot,
Despite your apparent 'denial' nuclear power is in it's last gasp.
Can not make it without heavy subsidies like 'legitimate' industry
must. The next accident will put an end to it since Chernobyl, TMI
was not enough.
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
21,081
7,827


Originally posted by chroot
man-made radiation exposure is, except in places like Chernobyl, entirely negligible when compared to the natural background.... While it's not proof that you're insane, the fact that virtually everyone else on this forum thinks you are is telling.
Though I hesitate to use the word "insane" (I'm not a psychologist), its always bizarred to me how people can ignore facts like this one. Its a very simple fact, irrefutable, and he/she completely ignores it. I'd really like to know if h/she just doesn't understand it (its a pretty simple concept though), understands it but doesn't undersand the implications, thinks its a lie, etc. That would be a good insight into what's going on inside theroyprocess's head. Thats why I keep asking the sun question:
Are you terrified of the Sun?
The only response I got suggests, h/she doesn't understand the question.
 
  • #32
On Topic

Radiation and Depleted Uranium Weapons:

WARNING: Graphic pictures of deformed babies.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
theroyprocess,

I think your newly-found target for paranoia, depleted uranium, is one of first sensible beliefs you've expressed here. I agree whole-heartedly that depleted uranium is an environmental and physiological hazard. I also wish it weren't used.

On the other hand, I strongly doubt that the authors of your alarmist flash animation are being fair to their audience. No sources were listed for any of their figures. In addition, flashing pictures of deformed babies, with absolutely no evidence that they are actually demonstrably a result of depleted uranium exposure -- or even are from the right time periods, or the right places -- delivers a blow to their credibility. My bet is that not a single image used in that animation can be conclusively shown to have anything to do with depleted uranium.

- Warren
 
  • #34
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
Warren,

If you look through this thread (or maybe it's another one nearby in MKaku.org Forum) you'll see that this isn't the first time theroyprocess has posted that link.

She didn't answer any of the questions asked of her following the other posting(s) either.

Let's see what luck you have.
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
21,081
7,827
Originally posted by chroot
I think your newly-found target for paranoia, depleted uranium, is one of first sensible beliefs you've expressed here. I agree whole-heartedly that depleted uranium is an environmental and physiological hazard. I also wish it weren't used.
How much worse do you consider it than lead?
 
  • #36
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
Originally posted by russ_watters
How much worse do you consider it than lead?
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.

- Warren
 
  • #37
russ_watters
Mentor
21,081
7,827
Originally posted by chroot
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?
 
  • #38
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
Originally posted by russ_watters
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?
Well, yeah -- uranium is pyrophoric. Lead is not.

- Warren
 
  • #39
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
And here are some good links to balanced, fair assesments of the impacts of the chemical and radiological effects of depleted uranium. The first is from Argonne National Lab, and intends only to determine the risk coefficients for various mechanisms of biological uranium contamination:

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf [Broken]

The second is an "almagamation" paper by two guys at the University of Maryland and Princeton. It appears an awful lot of research went into this paper, and I think its presentation is quite fair.

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/fetter/sags-du.pdf [Broken]

My final opinion on the matter? I think DU is nasty stuff, both from a radiological and a chemical standpoint. It is no more chemically dangerous than other compounds like lead (a milligram's not going to kill you), but it burns spontaneously in air and aerosolizes easily upon impact, making it easier to get into the body. It's not significantly radioactive (rather low specific activity, 175,000 times lower than plutonium-239) to be dangerous unless rather significant amouts are ingested or inhaled -- but I would bet that some of the soldiers involved in these battles (or some of the very stupid cilivians playing with the spent rounds) have exceeded this threshold. I feel fairly certain that at least a few people will (or have) developed cancers due to DU exposure.

On the whole, I think most of the alarmism about DU is unfounded. I'm also certain that DU is not responsible for the deformed babies shown in theroyprocess's flash site -- but, at the same time, I think its use constitutes a definite ethical problem. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means "tame as a kitty cat" and 10 means "instant wretching death," I personally rank DU as a 4. Your opinions?

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Ubiquitous Disclaimers

Here it is again....deadly, long-lived radioactive waste leaks
into our precious groundwater....and some industry spokesman
will state....'poses no threat to health'. They should go hang
themselves like Judas!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sellafield leaks worse than feared
Fears for drinking supply as radioactive pollution at nuclear plant
contaminates groundwater

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Sunday Herald - 14 December 2003

http://www.sundayherald.com/print38691 [Broken]

Radioactive contamination of the groundwater under the Sellafield nuclear
complex is worse than thought and British Nuclear Fuels isn’t doing enough
about it, says the government’s English watchdog, the Environment Agency.

The agency has told the local community in Cumbria it is “not satisfied”
with the progress being made by the state-owned company in understanding the
spread of pollution. New evidence indicates the contamination is
“potentially significant”.

“BNFL has messed up again,” alleged Pete Roche from the environmental group,
Greenpeace. “Contamination of groundwater is a serious matter, and BNFL has
displayed a lackadaisical attitude in its efforts to discover the source.”

BNFL admitted two years ago that the radioactive wastes, technetium-99 and
tritium, had been found in boreholes on the site. Last year, the government’
s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate reported that the contamination was
also detectable outside the site.

Now the Environment Agency is suggesting it has spread further. “The agency
is concerned that the current contaminated land study is indicating that
there is potentially significant contamination of groundwater,” it reported
to the Sellafield local liaison committee a few days ago.

“The lateral spread of technetium-99 and tritium on the Sellafield site
appears to be greater than last reported. The agency considers the develop
ment of deeper boreholes should lead to a greater understanding of the
vertical spread of contamination into the aquifer beneath the site. The
agency is not satisfied with BNFL’s progress in such work.”

The agency’s inspectors are worried BNFL is not using the best practice when
it samples groundwater. “We are very keen to protect the aquifer,” one of
them told the Sunday Herald. “We are pushing BNFL very hard on this.”

Environmentalists fear contamination of the sandstone aquifer under the site
could affect drinking water.

“It’s disgraceful that this liquid radioactive plume is being allowed to
spread out-side Sellafield unchecked and out of hand,” Martin Forwood, a
member of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core).

“That it now appears to involve not just technetium-99 but a number of other
radioactive materials, and to have penetrated the sandstone aquifer below
Sellafield, is a major concern and a threat to drinking water supplies. BNFL
and the Environment Agency must come clean now with the public about what is
happening.”

There are several possible sources for the leak. One is six, huge, old tanks
containing 3000 tonnes of radioactive sludge, another is some old waste
disposal trenches and a third is a complex of ponds and silos containing
high-level waste.

“The most likely source is previously reported leaks from historic
facilities on the site. We are continuing our investigations to confirm the
precise source or sources,” said a BNFL spokesman.

“The levels found pose no threat to health, and are so low that
sophisticated techniques are required to measure them. The company has
already made improvements to its sampling regimes, and is developing an
integrated monitoring programme as suggested.”

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. section 107) *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
EDITED by enigma


*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:
Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.
The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?


This was posted by enigma, a PF Mentor, in the following Nuclear Engineering thread (The Nuclear Power Thread):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9091&perpage=12&pagenumber=4

Later, enigma said: "I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint."

As far as I can see, Ms theroyprocess, you haven't answered any of the questions asked of you on this thread either.

Why is it that you do not answer simple, straight-forward questions on the material which you post?
 
  • #42
Multi-generational health effects

Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!
 
  • #43
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3


Originally posted by theroyprocess
Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!
Assume for the moment that "radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational genetic diseases". Throughout your many posts you have not addressed the following questions:

1) in what ways is 'radioactive environmental contamination' qualititatively different from naturally occurring radioactivity, in terms of its human impact?

2) the incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' is several orders of magnitude smaller than naturally occurring radioactivity, by any metric to do with human health. Ergo, detrimental effects on human health arising from 'radioactive environmental contamination' are far outweighed by detrimental effects on human health arising from naturally occurring radioactivity. If your concern is human health, why aren't you working to reduce our exposure to naturally occurring radioactivity?

3) Efforts to reduce the harmful health effects on humans of radioactivity come at a price. Why is it more cost effective to reduce the already tiny incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' than to take simple steps to reduce exposure to naturally occuring radioactivity?
 
  • #44
Man made radiation

Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!
 
  • #45
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
Yes, Nereid is a fellow member of the International Scientific Conspiracy. We have agents everywhere! You'd be surprised to learn that relativity, quantum mechanics, and even Newton's laws are really just confabulations, and we've pushed them upon the unsuspecting public all this time!

- Warren
 
  • #46
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3


Originally posted by theroyprocess
Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!
What I'm looking for *you* - the person posting lengthy material written by others - to do is answer three simple questions.

To clarify: why do YOU believe that man-made radioactivity is a much nastier, greater threat to human health than the naturally-occuring radioactive background we all experience now?
 
  • #47
It's MURDER

If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products....it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !!!
If you can't grasp that....your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!
 
  • #48
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,239
39
I dunno about you, but I've been thinking my belt buckle's out to get me for some time now. You should see the way it eyes me while it's lying on the floor beside my bed. I think it's definitely planning something.

- Warren
 
  • #49
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3


Originally posted by theroyprocess
If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products....it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !!!
If you can't grasp that....your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!
Oh, and if 'I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time savings for treatment...from' spending my winters skiing in the Alps, or flying thousands of hours on trans-Pacific airliners, or ... is that premeditated murder? or a form of suicide? Should I call my lawyers and sue the ski resort (because they didn't warn me about the increased risks of cancer from living at high altitude), or airline company (ditto)?

If you were my lawyer, supposing that I got cancer, how would you prove - in a court of law - that the man-made radioactivity in the spoon I used was the cause of my cancer, and not the *million* times greater natural radioactivity in the spoon?
 
  • #50
Nuremberg Codes

If the public is being unknowingly posioned...or mislead and lied
to about some products or service advertised as "safe and effective"
which IS NOT. It is breaking THE NUREMBERG CODES...of informed
consent.

When your wife or daughter gets breast cancer and dies in agony.
Just TELL THEM.....your b.s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Sunday Herald - 26 October 2003
Revealed: UK mums’ milk second most toxic in world
Survey shows chemicals from everyday products are ‘poisoning’ breast milk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Toxic contamination of mothers’ breast milk in Britain is among the highest in the world, a new survey by scientists has revealed.
Concentrations of chemical flame retardants, suspected of damaging brain development and causing cancer, are higher in the UK than in Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Canada. Scientists say the levels are “a real cause for concern”, while environmentalists describe them as “shocking” and “extremely worrying”.

The revelation comes as the European Commission prepares to water down its plan for regulating the 30,000 manufactured chemicals to which people are exposed in everyday consumer products. New controls to be published this week will be seriously weakened because of opposition from the chemical industry, backed by the British, German and French governments.

Scientists from Lancaster University tested the breast milk of 52 mothers in Lancaster and London for a group of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used in clothing, furniture and plastics to make them less flammable.

Some PBDEs were found in every sample, the highest being 68.6 nanograms per gram of fat and the average 6.6ng. These are much higher levels than every other country where comparable surveys have been done, except for the United States, which is by far the biggest user of PBDEs.

The toxic effects of PBDEs are poorly understood, though there is evidence from animal studies that they could impair learning, memory and behaviour, as well as trigger liver cancer. Scientists point out that they are structurally similar to PCBs, which have long been regarded as potential carcinogens and as a threat to reproductive and immune systems.

“We don’t know how PBDEs affect human health,” Kevin Jones, professor of environmental chemistry at Lancaster University, told the Sunday Herald. “But we do know that they are accumulating in our bodies and we suspect that they might be as toxic as PCBs. ”

He suggested that the high levels his team found in breast milk could come from the large amounts of PBDEs used in consumer products in Britain to comply with the country’s stringent fire precautions. His study is the first to investigate levels in British breast milk, and it is due to be published in a scientific journal within the next few months.

The marketing and use of two types of PBDEs will be banned by the European Commission from next August . But companies are switching to a third type not covered by the ban, but which scientists fear could be just as harmful.

Environmental groups say the new evidence about PBDEs strengthens the need for the European Commission to introduce a tough set of rules on hazardous chemicals this week. But leaked drafts of the latest EC proposals suggest that several of its key provisions will be abandoned.

The new regulations, known as Reach, will require much less safety information to be provided on two-thirds of the chemicals in use, as well as enabling companies to remain anonymous. Industry will only have to prove that chemicals are subject to “adequate control”, even if safer alternatives are available.

Recent research shows that many chemicals with potential health effects can be detected in a wide range of ordinary household items. Nonylphenols and phthalates, for example, have been found in Disney and Mothercare children’s pyjamas as well as in Woolworths bath ducks.

Earlier this month, the Food Standards Agency warned that a cancer-causing chemical called semicarbazide was migrating into food from the plastic seals on the lids of jars. Last month, the Sunday Herald disclosed that baby toys, nappies, clothes and plastics were contaminated with tin compounds known as organotins.

Now the discovery of PBDE flame retardants in breast milk has set more alarm bells ringing.

“It is extremely worrying,” said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He accused the British government of blocking agreement on the new European safety rules. “Given these shocking findings it is high time ministers stood up to the lobbying of chemical corporations and protected people from exposure to toxic threats.”

Another environmental group, WWF Scotland, is this week planning to release the results of blood tests it carried out for chemicals on 12 volunteers, including two MSPs, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame. Some of them may have tested positive for PBDEs.

“We cannot reveal individual results but the recent concerns over flame retardants mean that we will be looking particularly closely at these results,” said Dr Richard Dixon, head of policy at WWF Scotland.

“The European proposals to control chemicals are crucial to reducing the threat from the chemical soup we all live in. Until recently the UK supported radical reform of the laws on chemicals, so it is doubly disgraceful that Tony Blair has tried to water down the new testing system.”

The British Prime Minister wrote to EC President Romano Prodi in September, complaining that the proposed Reach chemical regulations were “a long way from being the fast, simple and cost- efficient procedure that was promised”. The letter was also signed by the French President, Jacques Chirac, and German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder.

The chemical industry also protested that the EC proposals would cost billions of euros and could put thousands out of work. As a result, EC environment commissioner Margot Wallström was forced to rewrite large chunks of the draft legislation, which she is due to publish on Wednesday.

But on Tuesday, thousands of protest postcards will be handed in to the EC office in Edinburgh by FoE Scotland.

The government’s environmental agencies also seem anxious to ensure that the rules remain strong.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency stressed that “prevention rather than cure is always a better option”, while Scottish Natural Heritage said that if the current Reach scheme was unworkable, other options should be explored.

The Scottish Executive, however, gave nothing away. Deputy environment minister, Allan Wilson, said: “We will study the proposals carefully to assess how well they balance environmental and health objectives with our desire to see a competitive and innovative chemicals industry.”

The new regulations are likely to be broadly welcomed by the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA), though it still wants further changes. “The commission has completed half the job in reducing the scope of the proposals,” said CIA director general, Judith Hackitt.

The new regulations will then go to the European parliament for comments. Environmentalists are hoping MEPs will be more receptive to their lobbying .

“Unless the European parliament strengthens this legislation it will not do anything to protect human health and the environment,” said Mark Strutt of Greenpeace. “The fight to get legislation that protects ordinary people from daily exposure to hazardous chemicals is just about to begin.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Related Threads on Radiation Health Effects URLS

Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
I
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
Top