Can nuclear power ever comply with the human right to health? Part I

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Spanish. 1949.A FIRST OF ITS KIND REPORT

In the continuing wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations sent Special Rapporteur on the right to health (a position created in 2002) Anand Grover to assess Japan’s compliance with human rights principles; specifically “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. His visit took place between November 15 and 26, 2012 with permission of the Government of Japan.

The report on the Fukushima disaster appears to represent the first time a United Nations investigation has linked health impacts of industrial radiation from a nuclear catastrophe to human rights. The Special Rapporteur has issued several recommendations for improvement in the following areas:

1. nuclear emergency response
2. detail and management of health surveys
3. dose limits of radiation
4. access to accurate information on radiation and its health effects
5. transparency and accountability of the nuclear industry
6. participation of affected communities in the decision-making process

This is the first part of a Beyond Nuclear exploration into how the Special Rapporteur’s (SR’s) recommendations and conclusions may apply to nuclear power and human rights compliance beyond the Fukushima catastrophe. Many aspects of the SR’s report are groundbreaking and speak directly to the shortcomings of our current assumptions on radiation and health not only in regard to events in Japan, but also in the context of radiation protection worldwide. A number of the recommendations, if applied worldwide, would remove nuclear proponents’ proclivity for undermining human rights (in this instance the right to health) in their feverish attempts to prop up a waning industry. Note the compliance of nuclear energy is still unexplored with regard to UN charters that lay out the rights of women and the rights of the child. But ultimately, the report recommendations on health pose, perhaps unintentionally, a silent but extremely important question:

Is it possible for the nuclear power industry and government proponents to comply with the UN definition of the right to health, or must they always exist in violation of these principles?

Let’s first examine some of the report recommendations and how they counter current nuclear sector practice.

Workers attempt to clean radiation from the TMI partial meltdownINVESTIGATE HEALTH IMPACTS OF EACH RADIOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE SEPARATELY

“Though experiences from the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents provide invaluable guidance, a narrow appreciation of the accidents would not provide proper guidance.” (p 9)

Health impacts from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, which is still releasing radiation, needs to be investigated separately from other nuclear catastrophes, like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, for a number of reasons. Studies on Chernobyl may not fully account for effects of contamination and radiation exposure because crucial information was not made public until 1990. Therefore, “...the right to health necessitates rigorous and prolonged monitoring of individual health, as the health effects of radiation exposure are not always immediately known or treatable...” (p 9) “The Special Rapporteur…encourages [the Government of Japan] to explore…health effects of radiation on children…” (p 11) that include chromosomal aberrations, increase in child and adult morbidity, impairment, leukemia and other childhood anomalies, fetal deaths, mental disability. Already health survey attempts in Japan have prematurely assumed no increase in child health anomalies or fetal death attributable to radiation exposure, based on incomplete Chernobyl research that showed no increase. They also wrongly assume no childhood health follow-up is necessary.

This recommendation is antithetical to how most experts assess radiation impacts on health and environment. Many of these experts, and the official bodies with which they work, possess conflicting interests. Comparing one set of health data (like that from the atomic bombings or Chernobyl) to a still-unfolding catastrophe like Fukushima, can lead to incorrect assumptions and misattribution of disease causation. Under these conditions, the real impact of radiation exposure is hidden and measures to ensure a healthy population are misdirected or not instituted at all.

Picture on a wall with ruined Chernobyl reactor in the backgroundConsider just two examples: that of CLL and thyroid cancer. An increase in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was found among Chernobyl liquidators, even though it was supposedly not found in the atomic bomb survivors. The lack of CLL in atomic bomb survivors has wrongfully negated compensation to US nuclear weapons workers who were exposed to radiation under different circumstances and subsequently contracted CLL. Also consider that researchers began examining the Chernobyl data with the assumption that they would find increases in thyroid abnormalities because an increase was present in those exposed to the atomic bombings. In this last instance the comparison was valid, whereas in the instance of CLL the comparison was misleading. This illustrates how previous accident data should be used as a guide, not as a bludgeon to stamp out any inconvenient or unexpected data collected after new catastrophes.

Fukushima evacueesStatistics used by the World Bank provide a litany of diseases which are more prevalent in Ukraine since the late 1980’s and are also more prevalent there than in other former Soviet states. These include heart and circulatory diseases, cancer, reduced life expectancy for females compared to males, infant mortality; the list continues. A number of these conditions are associated with radiation exposure according to various studies; and are among the SR’s list of diseases to be monitored post Fukushima. However, since the radiation health risk formulas for Chernobyl were largely based on atomic bomb studies which do not absolutely prove these connections, the health decline in Ukraine is attributed to a myriad of other causes, not radiation; not even as a partially responsible cause (a likely scenario). This is a case of data bludgeoning run amok.

PRECAUTION IS PREVENTION: DO NOT DISREGARD EVIDENCE THAT DISEASE CAN BE CAUSED BY LOW DOSES OF RADIATION

“…disregarding these findings diminishes the understanding of and increases vulnerability to health effects of long-term exposure to low-dose radiation.”  (p 6)

The report takes special care to repeat a number of times (pp 6,7,9, 10) that, although impacts of exposure to low-doses over a long time are not fully known, some studies do point to disease induction from chronic, low dose radiation. Therefore, evacuees should be advised to relocate to areas of contamination as far below 1mSv/year as possible and exposed populations must be monitored for such diseases. An official recognition that protection from low doses of radiation is a human right is revolutionary. This recommendation not only recognizes that avoidance of post-nuclear accident exposures is a right under the human rights framework, it also reaffirms the validity of the precautionary principle which states "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”  In its purest form, the precautionary principle is in agreement with the right to health. The political answer to scientific uncertainty is precaution.

This is contrary to what official radiation exposure committees like the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommend when deciding what is a “safe” exposure limit – a decision that incorporates economic considerations to the detriment of health through the principles of  “optimization” and “justification”.

NEXT TIME-- RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS: A CONVENIENT PRETEXT

Radiation Expert Exposes Danger to Ohioans from Fracking Waste

Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of RWMADr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates has authored a report, Hydraulic Fracturing Radiological Concerns for Ohio, on behalf of the FreshWater Accountability Project Ohio. FWAPOH also put out a press release, "Radiation Expert Exposes Danger to Ohioans from Fracking Waste," which calls for better public protections from the State of Ohio and the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District [MWCD]. 

Resnikoff points out that much of the highly-radioactive solids such as rocks and soils pulled up during drilling, and contaminated muds and sands are cheaply disposed of in municipal landfills in Ohio, irrespective of actual radioactivity content, for 1/100th of the cost of disposal of comparable low-level radioactive waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation in the nation's three facilities for that purpose. In Ohio, he stated, "It is evident that environmental concerns are trumped by the economics beneficial to the unconventional shale drilling industry." Similarly, Dr. Resnikoff identified evidence that the Patriot water treatment facility in Warren, Ohio, which delivers pretreated water to the Warren public water treatment plant, is likely sending radium-laden water into the Mahoning River watershed. "On a daily basis, Patriot does not test for gamma emitting radionuclides and for radium-226," he observed. 

"Dr. Resnikoff's work illustrates that Ohioans, from common citizens to truck drivers to landfill workers, are daily being exposed to radiation exposure or poisoning because the Governor, General Assembly and even a large conservancy district, the MWCD, are sacrificing public protections to prop up frackers' profitability," asserted Terry Lodge, attorney for SEOSOW. "Under the guise of 'austerity,' the state government is destroying protective regulations for everyone, while creating a business environment where those who threaten public health and the environment pay little to nothing. And even huge corporate welfare breaks aren't saving this dirty, low-productivity con game."

Lodge also serves as the attorney for environmental coalitions, including Beyond Nuclear, opposing the proposed new Fermi 3 atomic reactor in southeast MI, as well as the 20-year license extension, and the proposed steam generator replacement, at Davis-Besse in northwest OH.

Fracking was exempted from such federal laws as the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the same law which automatically subsidized nuclear power to the tune of $13 billion, while additionally leading to the approval of $22.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees thus far.

On May 22nd, Beyond Nuclear joined with 67 other groups to chastise Environmental Defense Fund for joining into a greenwashing alliance with the fracking industry.

UN human rights report issues critique on Japan's handling of Fukushima impacts, especially radiation exposure

UN Special Rapporteur, Anand Grover, has now released an advanced unedited report on the state of human rights in Japan following Fukushima fallout. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mission to Japan (15 - 26 November 2012) makes several recommendations on implementation of nuclear emergency response systems, monitoring health effects subsequent to an accident, policy changes on radiation dose information, decontamination, compensation and transparency within the regulatory framework. Here are some highlights:

Continue monitoring the impact of radiation on the health of affected persons through holistic and comprehensive screening for a considerable length of time and make appropriate treatment available to those in need;

Refrain from restricting examination for internal exposure to whole-body counters and provide it to all affected population, including residents, evacuees, and to persons outside Fukushima prefecture;

Formulate a national plan on evacuation zones and dose limits of radiation by using current scientific evidence, based on human rights rather than on a risk-benefit analysis, and reduce the radiation dose to less than 1mSv/year;

Provide, in schoolbooks and materials, accurate information about the risk of radiation exposure and the increased vulnerability of children to radiation exposure;

Incorporate validated independent data, including that from the communities, to monitor radiation levels.

Formulate urgently a clear, time-bound plan to reduce radiation levels to less than 1mSv/year;

Clearly mark sites where radioactive debris is stored;

Provide, with the participation of the community, safe and appropriate temporary and final storage facilities for radioactive debris;

Make information collected by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, including regulations and compliance of nuclear power plant operators with domestic and international safety standards and guidelines, publicly available for independent monitoring;

Ensure that TEPCO and other third parties are held accountable for the nuclear accident and that their liability to pay compensation or reconstruction efforts is not shifted to taxpayers.

Include cost of reconstruction and restoration of lives within the relief package;

Provide free health check-ups and treatment that may be required for health effects from the nuclear accident and radiation exposure;

Ensure that compensation claims by affected persons against TEPCO are settled without further delay;

The Special Rapporteur urges the Government to ensure effective community participation, especially participation of vulnerable groups, in all aspects of the decision-making processes related to nuclear energy policy and the nuclear regulatory framework, including decisions regarding nuclear power plant operations, evacuation zones, radiation limits, health monitoring and compensation amounts.

NOTE: The position of UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health was created in this century. This interim report on the Fukushima disaster appears to represent the first time an investigation has linked health impacts of industrial radiation from a nuclear catastrophe to human rights -- in this case the right to health for both children and adults.

UN radiation panel: children more vulnerable to radiation, even so, no detectable health effects from Fukushima

“Long-term monitoring, proper medical treatment, key to Fukushima citizens’ health outcomes. Children at increased risk”. This should have been the title of the most recent press release from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). However, UNSCEAR continues to downplay health effects from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.

The UNSCEAR press release presages their release of two reports expected in October 2013. It is hard to evaluate the scientific basis for many UNSCEAR claims without access to the full reports, but UNSCEAR's collective thought process is quite clear, both in the press release and the accompanying video of a May 31 press conference that followed a meeting of the committee. Beyond Nuclear contends the following issues are still outstanding and must be independently addressed to protect public and particularly child, health. UNSCEAR should no longer be allowed to downplay radiation impacts.

1.     Fear of radiation is justified based on radiation dangers and past official actions to hide this danger

UNSCEAR needs to recognize that fear of radiation exposure is justifiable because exposure to radiation posses a true (not exaggerated), unseen danger, that is often downplayed or ignored by officials. This official unwillingness to face these dangers often leaves people with no control over their own health outcomes. The UN Human Rights report (advanced unedited version): Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover, Mission to Japan (15 - 26 November 2012), recognizes that this fear of radiation has merit and should be addressed on this merit: "The Special Rapporteur personally observed the anxiety and stress among evacuees, residents and their families, which were related to the effect of radiation leakage on health, especially of children, cost of evacuation, loss of livelihoods as well as uncertain future and delays in receiving compensation that hindered rebuilding of their lives."

While uprooting communities and livelihoods is certainly devastating, the reason the people can't return to their former lives two years after the Fukushima catastrophe isn't because of the earthquake and tsunami devastation, it is because no dose of radiation is safe and radiation exposure has increased due to the catastrophe in the areas where these people used to live and work.

2.     Radiation is the real danger, not evacuation and relocation

The solution to the mental anguish caused by a nuclear accident isn't moving people back into contaminated areas, or keeping them from leaving in the first place -- something that UNSCEAR hints at when they say doses at Fukushima were reduced by a factor of 10 because of either evacuating or sheltering in place. However, the not-so subtle implication is that, of these two options, evacuation and more importantly, permanent relocation, can be the real damage, not radiation:  "The experience from the 1986 Chernobyl accident has shown us that apart from any direct impact on physical health, the social and societal effects, and their associated health consequences in  the affected population  will need special attention in the coming years," said Carl-Magnus Larsson, Chair, UNSCEAR. "Families are suffering, and people have been uprooted and are concerned about their livelihoods and futures, the health of their children…it is these issues that will be the long-lasting fallout of the accident." UNSCEAR, intentionally or not, is setting up a scenario where, at the very least, permanent relocation and maybe even evacuation, will not be recommended in future nuclear catastrophes. People who become victims of nuclear energy will not be able to relocate.

3.     Scientific bodies like UNSCEAR should know better than to attempt to “predict away” health effects of radiation exposure

UNSCEAR continues to predict that any health effects that occur will be difficult to attribute to radiation exposure: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers..." Note they don't say there will not be any health effects, just that we won't be able to detect them. So while they say long term monitoring is key, what would they expect to find if they have already assumed they won't see anything? Why bother to look? The UN Human Rights report warns that we don't yet know the impact of low-dose radiation from Fukushima. (see quote in paragraph below)

Should we observe increases in disease in Japan, UNSCEAR most likely will refuse to acknowledge that these disease increases are attributable to radiation not because of science, but because their prognostications told them it wasn't possible. In essence, what happened to cover up Chernobyl health impacts is occurring right now in Japan.

4.     People want proper medical treatment, not data-mining

UNSCEAR has not accounted for those in Japan who avoid official databases and therefore may not be in the official "count". These people don't want to become a statistic without also receiving proper medical care, something they believe they won't get from government. The UNSCEAR statement hints at medical follow-up, but doesn't really define what that means: "At the same time, it is important to maintain a long-term medical follow-up for the exposed population, and in relation to certain diseases to provide a clear picture of their health status development." But people in Japan have a right to be skeptical regarding proper medical follow-up since their historical experience after the atomic bombings proved to them their only worth to researchers was as a radiation experiment.  The UN report on Human Rights post Fukushima makes a stronger statement regarding access to medical care and the impacts of low-dose radiation: "As the exact health effects of long-term exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation cannot be accurately predicted, the implementing measures should also expressly provide free, life-long health screening and medical treatment relating to radiation exposure for all affected persons. The 20-year time limit contained in the Civil Code should not apply to financial assistance for medical care related to the nuclear accident."

5.     Studies of past radiation exposures are not always applicable to Fukushima exposures

UNSCEAR refuses to recognize the differences in exposure between the populations exposed from Fukushima and those exposed to medical exams and treatments, and atomic bomb fall-out. They still claim that for children: "More research is needed to fully understand the risks and effects following childhood exposure to radiation. This is necessary (and possible) because there are many individuals who were exposed as children (such as the survivors of the atomic bombings) who are still alive. Their experiences must not be lost," said Fred Mettler, Chair, UNSCEAR Report on Effects of Radiation Exposure on Children." This bomb exposure is not comparable to either the exposures at Chernobyl or Fukushima, which in turn, may not be wholly applicable to each other. The UN Human Rights report recognizes this (paragraph 9), as do a number of researchers.

6.     Children falling victim to radiation AND predictions of no noticeable health impacts

UNSCEAR recognizes that children are often more vulnerable to damage from radiation in any exposure scenario. In the case of Fukushima, UNSCEAR has recognized that long-term monitoring is key. Publishing a report enumerating the vulnerabilities of children is very important and the report by UNSCEAR will be the first attempt to collect this information in one place. But the report's release will be marred by UNSCEAR's  presupposed conclusion that " It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public...", and their historic unwillingness to stray from this belief despite observations to the contrary. As the health outcomes of children in Japan are followed, it will be interesting to see how nuclear proponents attempt to downplay any increases in childhood diseases linked to radiation exposure.

7.     Radiation exposure assumptions are based on flawed and incomplete data

thanks to simplyinfo.org for mapUNSCEAR is not accounting for the spread of radioactive contamination through burning of rubble OR other ill-fated attempts at "cleanup". Rubble which could be radioactive, has been transported across Japan and is being burned, spreading radioactive exposure. Attempts to clean the contaminated areas has lead to contamination of different areas and keeping track has been difficult.

UNSCEAR appears to be averaging the doses from Fukushima across the entire population of Japan, even though not everyone in Japan will be getting the same amount of exposure.  "The additional exposures received by most Japanese people in the first year and subsequent years due to the radioactive releases from the accident are less than the doses received from natural background radiation (which is about 2.1 mSv per year). This is particularly the case for Japanese people living away from Fukushima, where annual doses of around 0.2 mSv from the accident are estimated, arising primarily through ingestion of radionuclides in food."

However, before Fukushima, the background radiation in Japan was much lower than 2.1 mSv per year for most areas (see map, thanks to simplyinfo.org) This means that the 1mSv per year allowed through ingestion alone, by the Japan government, and which UNSCEAR supports, will add significantly to any natural radiation dose. In fact, the UN Human Rights report recommends that Japan should "Formulate a national plan on evacuation zones and dose limits of radiation by using current scientific evidence, based on human rights rather than on a risk-benefit analysis..."

Perhaps the most maddening circumstance is that UNSCEAR makes recommendations, but takes absolutely no responsibility for how these recommendations are used. This lack of accountability necessitates public vigilance and interaction with any recommendations they make. Beyond Nuclear will review the final reports when they are released in October. Stay tuned.

Landfill fire near radioactive waste dump raises alarm in St. Louis

Kay Drey, Beyond Nuclear board member and long-time watchdog on West Lake landfillIn early May, Rolling Stone quoted Beyond Nuclear board member Kay Drey (photo, left), regarding a municipal garbarge dump fire burning underground precariously near a radioactive waste dump near St. Louis.

Kay is a long-time watchdog on the West Lake landfill, a radioactive waste dump in the Missouri River floodplain near St. Louis.Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. processed Belgian Congo uranium during the secret Manhattan Project race to develop the atomic bomb in the 1940s. Those radioactive wastes were then dumped at the West Lake landfill in 1973. EPA wants to abandon them in place. Kay has long worked to have them removed from the Missouri River floodplain, not far upstream from St. Louis drinking water supply intakes.

Now the Associated Press/New York Times and St. Louis Magazine have reported on "the possibility of a slow-moving disaster right before our eyes," in the words of Ed Smith of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. The former article focuses on the health risks to nearby communities if the fire reaches the radioactive waste dump, while the latter article focuses on the health damage that the radioactive wastes may have already inflicted, especially in local children downstream.