The committee examining radiation risks of internal emitters, CERRIE — I apologise for the use of acronyms in this reply — was established in the United Kingdom in 2001 in response to concerns that the models accepted by Government Departments and regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom substantially underestimate the risks to human health from internal radiation. Internal radiation in the human body is caused by radioactive matter which has been inhaled or ingested.
The committee's remit was to consider these models in light of recent studies and identify any further research considered necessary. As with most issues, there is a wide range of opinion in the scientific community on the issues under consideration. This range of views was reflected in the composition of the committee. The committee's report, published on 20 October 2004, has been examined by my Department and by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland which advises my Department on these matters.
The committee examined in some detail the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection. These recommendations form the basis of radiation protection standards in use worldwide, including in the European Union. They are also the standards used in national legislation. The recommendations are under review by the ICRP and new recommendations are due to be published in 2005.
The UK committee highlighted a number of concerns regarding uncertainties in the use of certain methodologies by the ICRP and recommended that these be reassessed. The majority view of the committee was, however, that the available biological evidence does not point to the need for a fundamental change in radiological protection standards. The RPII, the relevant Irish authority, agrees with this view. I have been shown a copy of the report, which could be reasonably described as a selection of essays written in difficult English. Incidentally, it makes no reference to Ireland.
With regard to epidemiological evidence, the committee concluded that the evidence is compelling that moderate and high levels of exposure to internally incorporated radionuclides produce a raised risk of adverse health effects, which is not a surprise.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Little consensus could be reached, however, for lower levels of exposure. CERRIE concluded that epidemiological studies were only of value when they were conducted to a high standard and subject to both ethical and peer review. The RPII concurs with these views concerning the conduct of epidemiological studies.
From an Irish viewpoint, the most important section of the CERRIE report concerns its findings on Sellafield and Dounreay, Scotland. The report accepts the finding of many studies showing excesses of childhood leukaemia around Sellafield and the nuclear facility in Dounreay, Scotland. According to the report, the majority of CERRIE members did not accept that the evidence showed the risk of cancer in general was increased near nuclear sites.
The report does not make reference to the radiation risks associated with Sellafield as regards the Irish population. The RPII has advised my Department that the findings of the report do not change, for better or worse, the RPII's assessment of the radiation risks associated with Sellafield for the Irish population.
Two members of the CERRIE committee stepped down and prepared a minority report on radiation risks of internal emitters. I have asked the RPII to examine this minority report also and report to me.
A separate report was also published on 20 October by CERRIE's parent committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment, COMARE. The COMARE report gives a response to the CERRIE report and provides advice to United Kingdom Ministers highlighting, in particular, the internal radiation health risks presented by radon. These reports will be considered by the relevant United Kingdom Ministers and I will await with interest the outcome of that consideration.