Nuclear radiation

Press, 2 July 1983, Page 16

Nuclear radiation

Sir,—Dr Rosalie Bertell, the American radiation biologist who spoke recently in Christchurch, is a sincere conservative on nuclear issues. With impressive credentials to back her, she is warning humankind that our devotion to nuclear weapons and nuclear power is a terminal disease. I am dismayed by the position taken by Mr H. Atkinson of the National Radiation Laboratory. Is it “rubbish” for Dr Bertell to condemn all nuclear warfare? Would he have us ignore existing evidence of radiation damage to human populations because the data are not comprehensive? Apparently Mr Atkinson would prefer scientists to remain silent on radiation dangers to the public health unless the data are definitive, an impossible demand. I commend Dr Bertell for speaking out courageously in the public interest. Mr Atkinson is failing to use his own expertise constructively to inform us of the very real dangers we are facing. — Yours, etc., ROBERT L. LEONARD. June 24, 1983.

Sir,—Those who, like Dr Bertell, exaggerate ecological and health damage from nuclear weapon testing, miss the fundamental reason for opposing it — that it is part of the development of nuclear weapons which, if ever used on a large scale, would wipe out a large part of the human race and reduce the rest to primitive poverty with, a radioactive environment sufficient to seriously damage health. I agree with Mr Atkinson. However, argument about minor effects of tests diverts attention from the major question. While monitoring radioactivity on the New Zealand frigates at Mururoa in 1973, I said on the ship’s TV that my protest was over the development of instruments of mass murder rather than the traces of radioactive contamination. This is still true. The most effective action New Zealand can take is to promote the nuclear-weapons-free zone. — Yours, etc., JIM McCAHON. June 28, 1983.