Nuclear radiation

Press, 30 June 1983, Page 16

Nuclear radiation

Sir,—Mr Hugh Atkinson (“The Press,” June 24) may be a physicist but he is certainly not a biologist. If the people of the Kerala area in India are exposed to higher levels of natural radiation than average, they will be adapted to such levels, in the same way that other indigenous peoples have adapted to higher levels of other forms of solar radiation such as infra-red and ultra-violet. His suggestion that low levels of radiation cannot be harmful if these people are not affected, makes as much sense as claiming that exposure to intense sunlight does not cause sunburn or skin cancer, because people native to Fiji or Central Africa do not suffer greatly from either afflictions despite the greater sunlight intensity. It is not the level of radiation per se that is harmful but rather the increase to a level beyond which our bodies are adapted. — Yours, etc., HARRY LITCHWARK. June 24, 1983.

Sir,—Hugh Atkinson of the National Radiation Laboratory does this country no service by discrediting the findings of Dr Bertell. Even if 1 per cent of the information Dr Bertell gives is true there is considerable cause for alarm. The tragedy of one damaged child or the death of a loved one from cancer is too high a price to pay for the arrogant uses of uranium. In fact, Dr Bertell gives plenty of convincing evidence to support her information. — Yours, etc J. T. KITNEY. June 24, 1983. Sir, — Thank you for your recent coverage on nuclear radiation arguments — for and against (June 24). It was further interesting to note another article, “Toxic dangers seen in nuclear testing.” In an NZPA-Reuter article from Melbourne, also in your paper, the findings of “a world authority on venoms,” Dr Sutherland, seem to . correspond alarmingly with those ’ of Dr Rosalie Bartell. Perhaps Mr Hugh Atkinson, Director of the National Radiation Laboratory, should stop trying to pretend that nothing is happening. This, “she’ll be fine mate” attitude is all very well for mankind. We womankind are coming out of our closets and are becoming aware that the land, air and food that our children play on, breathe in and eat are polluted and we are beginning to organise. A mother’s love for her child is a very special thing. Even small amounts of nuclear radiation have disgustingly frightful results. I do not intend to stand by and kiss my two children goodbye. — Yours, etc., JOY RITCHIE. June 28, 1983. Sir,—Daily we hear of nuclear bomb tests and nuclear power plant accidents. The scientific evidence we are fed seems designed to confuse rather than clarify. How many were left perplexed after Ken Coates’ article CThe Press,” June 24) on the long-term effects on. health of radiation from nuclear fission? On the one hand, a mem--1J» ber of a religious community,

answerable to a consultative organisation providing scientific research to a wide range of groups, Eointed to a continuing harvest of rain damage and cancer from radiation pollution. On the other hand, a Government-employed Director of the Radiation Laboratory, answerable to politicians who are in the business of staying in power, dismissed the findings of a biostatistician with experience in cancer epidemiology and radiation health effects. Knowing radiation is hazardous we must call a halt to all nuclear testing while doubt remains. — Yours, etc., TONI DILLON. June 28, 1983.