I thank the Chairman. I sent a long statement to the committee and I now propose to go through it informally as that will leave more time to discuss matters.
I am very pleased to be here. This is a very fine place to work. I have not been before an Oireachtas committee before but I have seen the proceedings on television. I thought the room would be a long rectangle and not circular.
Let me summarise my statement. The role of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, is to provide for the protection of the public from unnecessary exposure to ionising radiation. Ionising radiation is the type of radiation associated with radioactive substances and also X-rays in medicine. Broadly, there are three pillars to what the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland does. It regulates users of ionising radiation in Ireland through a licensing system. We have almost 2,000 licensed users. It assesses the exposure of the public to ionising radiation and it advises the public and the Government on how to minimise exposure to ionising radiation.
The RPII developed out of the Nuclear Energy Board, which preceded it but it has a different remit to the Nuclear Energy Board and has been in operation since 1992. It has established a very fine reputation, both at home and abroad. I have selected four topics which I consider to be particularly important to the work of the RPII in the next several years.
The RPII works to minimise the exposure of the public to radon gas. This is a 24 hours a day, seven days a week exposure to natural radiation. In simple terms it is a public health issue. Exposure to radon gas is heavily implicated in up to 200 deaths per year in Ireland. That statistic is in the same sphere as the number of road deaths and death from suicide, of which we hear a great deal. We do not hear that much about radon gas, unfortunately. It is a major public health matter and is the major source of exposure of the public to ionising radiation.
Radon is a natural gas. It seeps out of the earth up to the air and we unavoidably breath it in. It emits radiation and irradiates our lunges, giving rise to the risk of lung cancer. It is natural and most of the radiation we receive is natural radiation and most of that natural radiation, two thirds of it, is radon. The good news is that we can do something to minimise our exposure to radon, when we can do very little about the rest of natural radiation, and that is good. The bad news is that the public is not very interested or engaged with radon.
Radon comes out of the earth and up into the air, and it tends to build up indoors. The problem is that it is indoor exposure to radon. The RPII conducted a survey of the entire country and has identified high radon areas in the country. We have indoor air concentrations in Ireland that are among the highest radon concentrations in the world. It is a very real problem. A reference level is set for radon levels in indoor level and that is the concentration of radon at or above which the householder is advised to take action to reduce radon levels.
They can be reduced in a simple way. The RPII offers a service of measuring radon in indoor air. It costs about €50. If one finds that the indoor air concentration is higher than or at the reference level, one can have remediation works done by a private firm that will cost approximately €1,000 to €1,500.
There is little public interest in radon and of the national housing stock of 1750,000, only 43 houses are on the data base for having been measured. There has been very little remediation carried out. The RPII publicises the radon problem in several ways. It concentrates on the high radon areas in the country but it also does it for the entire country and conducts radon road shows to the high radon areas.
There is a strategy being developed for a national radon policy because this is a real public health issue. Other stakeholders, apart from the RPII are being recruited to help with this, in particular the HSE, local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. This is bread and butter work that goes on every day and it is very important.
We need to be more successful and minimise the exposure of the public to radon. It is part of the strategic plan that the RPII engages with a range of these important stakeholders and the Department of Health and the HSE are very important stakeholders. This is a health problem. The HSE has good credibility for advising the public about health. The RPII does it all the time but the HSE has public credibility in this area above and beyond what the RPII would have, so engaging with the HSE and getting it on board to publicise this is important.
One very useful strategy that should be used to sensitise people to radon is to appeal to parents to have their radon levels checked in the home and if they are high to have them reduced in the interests of protecting their children. It is the same as cigarette smoking. No parent wants to see little Johnny or Mary starting to smoke cigarettes. One could be smoking the equivalent of ten or 15 cigarettes a day by breathing in radon if the radon level is high in one's home. I believe we would have some success by appealing to parents.
Another important area of work for the RPII is to dispose of a build-up of unwanted and unused radiation sources in the country. These have built up over the years and are called legacy sources. Approximately 90% of it is held in third level education and medical institutes. Unfortunately there is no national repository for radioactive waste, so these sources are held in the individual institutes where they were once used. Sometimes they are held under non-ideal conditions. They do not constitute a major radiation hazard, although they constitute some level of hazard. They are a great nuisance for various other reasons, as I know from personal experience at UCC, where we have many of these sources.
I was pleased to learn recently that effective action is under way to reduce our national inventory of these sources and to get rid of them. Money has been made available for this. Over the years, they were stored where they arose.
Before the advent of the Celtic tiger, I rang the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, and asked it how much it would charge to remove UCC's unwanted sources. I was informed that the agency would investigate the matter and get back to me. I vividly recall receiving a telephone call from the IAEA at a later date. The man who contacted me was Japanese and he spoke very stilted and halting English. He informed me that he had a quotation for me and I asked him how much money was involved. He stated that it would cost $7 million. I burst out laughing because at that time the university was being run on pocket change. The man was not familiar with idiom and he thought that when I laughed, I was sneering at him. He said "Excuse, please, this not joke". I replied that it was a joke to me because UCC's then annual budget was €2 million to €3 million. Money is now being made available and we are in a position to get rid of many of our sources for a great deal less than €7 million. I received a quotation of €30,000 in respect of 26 non-nuclear sources we have in Cork. These sources will be exported to countries which have nuclear industries and in which they can be recycled. The Departments of Education and Skills and Health are making the money available.
A new directive establishing a community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste recently went live at European level. This directive will be transposed into Irish law in 2013 and it will oblige us to have a policy for the management and recycling of radioactive waste. A national implementation committee has been put in place in respect of this matter. That committee is investigating the possibility of establishing some form of storage facility in which what are termed "orphan" sources - that is, no one is willing to accept ownership of them - sources that are seized from those who are abusing them or sources which are difficult to get rid of can be stored. There are always some sources which require to be stored. However, we should be able to get rid of most of them. We will not allow them to build up in the future. The problem in this regard is well on the way to being resolved. It is important that the RPII should, during the next several years, monitor the situation in order to ensure that there will be no backsliding and that those currently who hold on to such sources divest themselves of them. I am delighted with that development.
The third matter to which I wish to refer is non-ionising radiation. The RPII deals only with ionising radiation. As already stated, the latter is radioactive material. However, there is an entire range of other radiations to which we are constantly exposed. These include visible light, ultraviolet light, infra-red radiation, microwave radiation - which relates to mobile phones - and the radiation associated with electricity. We are exposed to these forms of radiation on a continual basis and if one receives a dose greater than the threshold level, it can be dangerous for one's health. There is no single agency in the country which is responsible for advising members of the general public with regard to how they should protect themselves from these radiations. People are far more interested in non-ionising radiation than they are in ionising radiation.
In many other countries the agencies which deal with ionising radiation also deal with non-ionising radiation. That makes sense because the entire ethos of protection against non-ionising radiation is quite similar to that which applies in respect of ionising radiation. Responsibility for advising the public and the Government with regard to non-ionising radiation should be added to the brief of the RPII. That has already been decided in principle. In 2008, the then Government agreed that what I am suggesting would be done. However, it was indicated at the time that some resources would be required in order to allow the RPII to take on the extra workload. The decision to which I refer has not yet been brought into effect but I would like to see it happening. At the time, the idea was that the RPII would take responsibility for not all non-ionising radiation to begin with but rather that associated with mobile phones and overhead power lines. The latter are the two forms of radiation about which members of the public are most concerned. I receive far more inquiries from people about non-ionising radiation produced by mobile phones and electrical devices and cables than in respect of ionising radiation. There is a major need for a single central body to be put in place to answer queries from the public and to advise the Government about matters such as that. If what I am suggesting is to happen in the next few years, I presume we will be obliged to proceed in a way which will not require the provision of a huge level of additional resources. I am of the view that it should happen, however, because it is extremely important for the general public and for Ireland as a whole.
The final matter to which I wish to refer in the context of my personal vision for the RPII relates to its public profile. The RPII is a relatively small operation which employs approximately 50 staff. It is not easy to achieve a high public profile. The institute has a good profile but it could certainly be better. If, for example, one carried out a survey of adults throughout the country, one would discover that only about one in four are aware of the existence of the RPII. The position in this regard should be improved. If the institute gains a good public profile and becomes well known, well regarded and trusted, this would be a great enabler in the context of all the work it does. If it achieved that profile, members of the public would listen attentively to advice regarding radon, information about nuclear accidents abroad and what should be done here, and advice on what to do in the event of an emergency. If there was ever a major accident involving the nuclear industry in the UK, we would be obliged to take special precautions. The better the institute's public profile, the better it will be for everyone.
It is easy to achieve a bad public profile. The way to achieve a good profile is through the media. Fortunately, the work the institute does is intrinsically interesting. It should not be that difficult, therefore, to interest the media more in what we do in the context of monitoring the environment for radiation and monitoring food. Many countries require radiation certificates in respect of food imports. They will not accept such imports unless they are provided with such certificates. As members are aware, agriculture will eventually rescue this country. We have all sorts of multinationals, etc., which provide great employment. However, agriculture remains our major natural resource and it is going to enjoy a comeback. If we cannot certify the food we produce as being pretty much free of artificial radiation, we will encounter difficulties. We do not have a nuclear industry but we can provide the certification required. The RPII routinely supplies such certification and does a great deal of other important work including monitoring drinking water and air quality. If a nuclear accident occurs abroad, the monitors the institute has in place throughout the country will immediately alert us to the existence of any radioactive fallout. In addition, the RPII engages in a high level of interaction with similar agencies abroad.
It is important that the institute should have a good public profile. I have personal experience of the media and I write a column for The Irish Times and my work in UCC involves encouraging public awareness and understanding of science. I have had a great deal of experience in successfully explaining scientific matters to the public and I have good contacts in the media. I would hope to be able to work in a synergistic way with the communications committee of the RPII and with its PR consultants in order to further improve its public profile.
It will only take a minute to outline my personal qualifications for the job. That is not because I possess few qualifications but rather because I do not intend to dwell on them. I am a scientist. I have a BSc and PhD in science and as such have a professional understanding of the nature of radiation and its effects on the body. I have worked as a radiation protection officer at UCC since 1978 and liaised closely with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, during all that time. I was a founding board member of the RPII in 1992 and served on the board until 1997. I also chaired the public relations sub-committee at that time. I have been a member of two other national boards over the years.
I have a great deal of media experience. I have been writing a science column for The Irish Times since January 1995. I am the public awareness of science officer at UCC in respect of which I organise annual public lectures and operate a website. I have been working at UCC since 1975 and have a lot of academic and administrative experience, eventually at senior level. I have also chaired many committees.
