Publication Laka-library:
CERRY Minority Report 2004
| Author | R.Bramhall, C.Busby, P.Dorfman |
| Date | August 2004 |
| Classification | 2.05.0.00/51 (UNITED KINGDOM - GENERAL) |
| Front | 
|
From the publication:
CERRIE Minority Report 2004 Foreword By Michael Meacher MP Minister for the Environment in the Blair government until July 2003, and Minister responsible for setting up CERRIE I am deeply disappointed that it has proved necessary to publish this minority report. I set up the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters because I was aware of the growing evidence suggesting that radioactive releases may have very long-term health consequences, and because there are wide differences of opinion about the reality of this evidence. Preliminary discussions with scientists from both sides of the divide persuaded me that the current model of radiation hazard, based as it is almost exclusively on the consequences of gamma irradiation delivered from outside the body in a single massive dose from an exploding atom bomb, was very unlikely to be a reliable indicator of the cumulative impact of chronic inhalation and ingestion of radioactivity. As Environment Minister I was required to take responsibility for policy in many relevant areas. Science can be only trusted if it is pursued with the most rigorous procedures that guarantee freedom from bias. For this reason I deliberately set up the committee on a balanced basis with all opposing views fully represented - the first such science committee that I am aware of. I asked the Members to agree where they could and to delineate any areas of disagreement. Their remit was to explain the disagreements in accessible language and to propose research which might resolve them. Unfortunately, it seems that the procedures which prevailed in the Committee, while they have allowed discussion of a wide range of topics, have produced a Final Report which does not accommodate a full and fair representation of all views. More seriously, from the point of view of taking this debate forward, the Report fails to explain the reasons for the continuing disagreements. This applies, in some cases, to what look like quite basic issues. Take, for example, the question of whether there was or was not a significant increase in infant leukaemia across Europe after the Chernobyl disaster. Why does the Final Report present only one side?
This publication is only available at Laka on paper, not as pdf.
You can borrow the publication or request a copy. When we're available, this is possible for a small fee.