- Fundraising Appeal
- Three Mile Island
- General Interest
- Rare Earth Mining
- War & Peace
- Nuclear Testing
- Fossil Fuels
- NUCLEAR POWER
- NUCLEAR WEAPONS
- NUCLEAR WASTE
- PUBLIC HEALTH
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- RENEWABLE ENERGY
Foodwatch: Calculated Fatalities from Radiation Officially Permissible Limits for Radioactively Contaminated Food in the European Union and Japan
- Categorized in: Radiation
A foodwatch Report, based on a study by Thomas Dersee and Sebastian Pflugbeil Gesellschaft für Strahlenschutz e.V. (German Society for Radiation Protection)
In cooperation with the German Section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
Berlin September 2011
foodwatch e. v. • brunnenstraße 181 • 10119 berlin • germany • www.foodwatch.de • fon +49 (0)30 / 240476 - 0 • fax +49 (0)30 / 240476 - 26
Table of Contents FOREWORD 4
OBSERVATIONS – AND WHAT MUST HAPPEN NEXT 5 1.
Radioactivity is still escaping from the reactors in Fukushima – posing a significant threat to humans and the environment. Even though reliable information on the extent of radioactive contamination is not available, one thing is certain: the people of Japan will have to deal with contamination – in food – for decades.
The dietary intake of radionuclides such as cesium-137 after nuclear disasters like the meltdowns at Fukushima and Chernobyl represents the highest danger to human health in the long term. Officially permissible limits on the content of radionuclides in food, set with the intention of protecting the population from exposure to radiation, therefore play a very prominent role.
The nuclear disaster at Fukushima again raised the question – as did the reactor meltdown at Chernobyl – of how much protection can be guaranteed to citizens when currently permissible limits are in effect. To answer this question, foodwatch commissioned Thomas Dersee and Sebastian Pflugbeil of the German Society for Radiation Protection to compile the study found in this report.
The report is published in cooperation with the German Section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). It includes not only the professional opinion written by Thomas Dersee and Dr Sebastian Pflugbeil of the German Society for Radiation Protection, which provides the scientific basis, but also a summary and the conclusions drawn by the organizations collaborating on this work.
The report documents that there are no ‘safe’ limits for radioactivity and that determining any permissible value limits is equivalent to making a calculated decision on the number of fatalities that can be expected from a given level of radiation exposure. With this in mind, the study concludes that current limits in Europe and Japan are irresponsibly high and consciously tolerate thousands of deaths. Even if only 5 percent of currently permissible limits on radioactive contamination were consumed in food, Germany, for example, could expect at least 7,700 of its population to die each year from the effects of radiation. This does not even take into account the secondary health consequences of chronic diseases of the thyroid and pancreas, for example.
The intention of this report is to open public debate on the existing European Union system governing the determination of permissible limits and its implications, and to counteract the ideology widely used by governments and the nuclear industry that people can be safe if allegedly scientifically established limits are set.
We at foodwatch and the German Section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) call for a drastic reduction in current EU value limits to significantly improve health protection for the population, knowing full well that allowing any permissible limits at all means that a certain number of people will be the victims of radiation. The Japanese government is also urged to substantially lower its current value limits.
foodwatch e.V. and the German Section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
Observations – and what must happen next
Permissible limits in the European Union and Japan do not protect the population and tolerate a high number of fatalities from radiation
The dietary intake of radionuclides such as cesium-137 after a nuclear disaster poses the highest danger to human health in the long term. Officially permissible limits on the content of radionuclides in food, established with the intention of protecting the population from radiation risks, therefore play a very prominent role.
The permissible limits currently set in the EU and Japan for radiation protection mean that the population is exposed to an unnecessarily high risk to health. If we assume that the population of Germany were to ingest food containing the current maximum limits of contamination permitted in the EU – equivalent to the limits applying to imports from Japan – children and adolescents would each be exposed to an annual effective dose of 68 millisieverts (mSv) and adults of 33 mSv. The German radiation protection legislation that governs the operation of nuclear power plants stipulates that the legally permissible limit of total exposure from all exposure pathways is 1 mSv per year for individuals. This means that if children and adolescents ingested the amount of radioactive contamination permitted by EU and Japanese regulations, they would be exposed to 68 times the German limit. Even if only 2 percent of the dietary intake were contaminated to permissible EU and Japanese limits, the annual effective dose would already be over the German limit of 1 mSv.
Calculations based on models used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) show that dietary intake of the maximum amount of radioactive contamination permitted in the EU and Japan would lead to at least roughly 150,000 fatalities in Germany each year. Other calculation models reach vastly higher figures. If the entire German population were to eat foods exposing individuals to only 5 percent of the contamination currently allowed in food imports from Japan, at least 7,700 fatalities could be expected; this figure doesn’t even include the secondary consequences of a wide range of greatly varying diseases and genetic disorders.
Other countries have to some extent set much stricter limits and thereby done more to protect human health. Even the limits in Ukraine and Belarus are much stricter and have continuously tightened over the last few years. The permissible limit for cesium-137 in milk products in Ukraine and Belarus is 100 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg), whereas this value stands at 370 Bq/kg in the EU and 200 Bq/kg in Japan.
Current permissible limits are contradictory and opaque
After the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan, the EU Commission put into effect parts of an already existing regulation that had been prepared in 1987 in response to the Chernobyl disaster but never used. This regulation allowed the maximum permissible limits for contamination in food imports from Japan to the EU to be much higher and less strict than the limits in effect before the Fukushima disaster happened, and was even less stringent than the limits set in Japan itself. The Commission later revised its decision and reduced the permissible contamination limits for imports from Japan.
But contradictions in the EU’s system governing permissible limits have not been eliminated. Products from countries other than Japan, which may be more highly contaminated than the same products from Japan, can still be marketed because they are not affected by the specific regulations which the EU has adopted for Japanese imports. By the same token, products from Japan no longer allowed for direct import into the EU may still be sold in Europe if they detour first through another country.
Current maximum permissible limits are dictated by commercial interests
The excessively high radiation protection limits in the European Union and Japan are due to the fact that EURATOM and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which exert influence on the setting of maximum limits, are dominated by the nuclear industry and radiologists. The World Health Organization (WHO) made an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), now valid for more than 50 years, in which it relinquished jurisdiction to the IAEA for defining the health damage caused by radiation. The declared aim of the IAEA is the expansion and promotion of nuclear energy. Consequently, the assessment of health damage caused by the Chernobyl disaster was done by the IAEA, not WHO. Even in the case of Fukushima, WHO has not taken a leading role in assessing risks to health or preventing them.
Current maximum limits conflict with European law and international principles
Environmental protection is anchored in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and based explicitly on the precautionary principle (Article 191). This prescribes preventive action when human health is threatened. However, currently permissible limits are unnecessarily high due to economic interests and stand in conflict with the concept of protecting human health through preventive measures.
Current limits contradict the principle of radiation minimization set out at an early stage by the International Commission on Radiological Protection; this principle has gained international acceptance and can be seen as central to legislation on radiation protection in Germany (§6 of the German Radiation Protection Ordinance). The minimization principle implies that all unnecessary exposure to radiation should be avoided.
There are no safe permissible limits
People are exposed to a certain level of radiation in the normal course of life. We can’t elude cosmic and terrestrial radiation, the radiation inside our bodies from potassium- 40, or the radon gas from the uranium decay series and its decay products. An adult in Germany is exposed on average to 2.1 millisieverts (mSv) per year from these sources. The use of radiation in medical diagnostics raises average exposure by another 1.8 mSv per year.
Added to this is exposure to radiation from artificial, human activities such as the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests of the last century and the operation of nuclear power plants. Radionuclides such as the cesium-137 found in foods do not occur naturally. They are artificial products from nuclear reactors. Large quantities of them were released after the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima and have an additional effect on people.
Setting official maximum levels of radionuclides to be tolerated in food is supposed to protect the population from danger. But, in contrast to chemical toxins, there is no threshold below which radioactivity is harmless. Thus there is also no dose of radiation, no matter how small, that is harmless, benign or unobjectionable. The authority (government or international organization) that recommends or sets standards, or maximum permissible value limits, basically decides on how many fatalities or cases of illness will be acceptable in a given situation.
Consequently, there are no ‘safe’ limits, even if the German government stresses that maximum permissible levels accommodate “the basic principle of radiation protection to minimize exposure to radioactive contamination as far as possible.”1 Even the lowest levels of radionuclides in food can lead to illness and death. The meaningless choice of words, “to minimize as far as possible,” accurately describes the attitude of authorities: the principle of radiation minimization is cancelled out through the practice of establishing permissible limits.
1German Bundestag, Printed Matter 17/5720, response of the German government to the minor interpellation put by Members of Bundestag Ulrike Höfken, Nicole Maisch, Bärbel Höhn, other members of
Stricter limits are needed to protect the population
Regulations for dealing with contaminated food must have as their first priority the health of the population. Given that the acceptance of any permissible radiation limits consciously tolerates illness and fatality, the protection of health must not be compromised by trade or commercial interests. A significant reduction in current limits is needed to reduce the risk of health problems.
To derive limits that can be used as a standard to achieve this reduction, our calculations are based on a person being exposed to a maximum annual effective radiation dose of 0.3 millisieverts (mSv). This is the maximum exposure limit set out in Germany’s radiation protection legislation for normal operations in nuclear power plants; the figure applies to the exposure pathways of air and water. Therefore, the limits discussed here are designed to ensure that an effective annual dose of 0.3 mSv is not exceeded in dietary intake – under the assumption that the composition of radionuclides is the same as in fallout from Fukushima. Permitting higher effective annual doses from the consumption of food would result in a higher number of victims; this is avoidable if we use only the German standard for our calculations. In end effect, this means that current EU value limits must be reduced to 8 becquerels per kilogram of total cesium for baby food and 16 becquerels per kilogram of total cesium for all other foods.
The maximum permissible limits for baby food and milk products presently stand at 370 becquerels total cesium (200 becquerels for imports from Japan), and 600 becquerels for other foods (500 becquerels for imports from Japan).2
In terms of the precautionary principle, exposure to iodine-131 in food must be deemed completely unacceptable, given the isotope’s relatively short half-life of approximately 8 days. Within the period when iodine-131 decays, people should not be expected to eat food contaminated with this isotope. Many foods can be stored (or frozen) until the iodine-131 isotope has decayed and the foods have become suitable for consumption, unless they are contaminated by other radionuclides.
Current limits in Japan do not guarantee enough health protection either. We urge the Japanese government to drastically lower permissible limits to ensure acceptable health protection.
But fatalities must still be taken into account even when lower limits are enforced. If the setting of lower limits ensured that people in Germany were exposed to an effective annual dose of no more than 0.3 mSv from foodstuffs, there would still be at least 1,200 additional fatalities each year from radiation exposure. Indeed, even if people consumed...
A uniform limit system that applies equally to normal and emergency situations
Apart from the need to reduce limits to a level that ensures acceptable health protection, there must be an end to the chaos in the EU regarding official limits. There cannot be several systems side by side that govern different permissible limits in different countries. Furthermore, permissible values for the normal situation cannot be different from those in place for an emergency situation. Identical limits for all situations must ensure the best possible health protection for the population.
1. The absorption of radionuclides through food is the most important long term source of contamination after a nuclear catastrophe. Following the reactor catastrophe in Fukushima, the EU Commission put into effect new higher permissible limits for food imported from Japan; these value limits were predominantly higher than the limits allowed in Japan itself. The EU thus needlessly permitted the import of radioactively contaminated foodstuffs that would not have been authorized for consumption in Japan. After this became known, the value limits were “provisionally” brought into line with those in Japan. Furthermore, the EU limits are up to five hundred times higher than those that have been in effect for years in Ukraine and Belarus since the Chernobyl reactor meltdown.
2. When such value limits are set, a decision is made about the number of people that can be expected to fall victim to radiation exposure in the European and Japanese populations. According to Paragraph 47 of the German Radiation Protection Ordinance, a value limit of 0.3 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation exposure per individual per year is in effect regarding the “discharge of radioactive substances through air or water” in normally operating nuclear facilities. Exclusive consumption of solid food and beverages that are contaminated with radionuclides at the levels permitted by current EU value limits exceeds the limit of 0.3 mSv many times over, up to 276 times for children and 110 times for adults.
3. TheEUlimits,permittingapossibleexposureofabout80millisievertsperchildperyear, accept that about 400 to 4000 out of 100,000 children would later die each year from cancer due to this exposure. For adults, exposed to a permitted 33 millisieverts each year, additional cancers each year would lead to fatalities of 165 to 1650 out of 100,000.
4. By setting such value limits for foodstuffs, the Japanese government and the governments of the European states are demanding human sacrifice from their populations. That said, it is important to note here that according to the currently valid dose concept (effective dose), only cancer fatalities have been taken into account, not the number of illnesses – a higher figure. After the Chernobyl reactor catastrophe, not only were many people afflicted with cancer, but there was also a sharp increase in other somatic illnesses such as a weakening of the immune system, premature aging, cardiovascular disease even in younger patients, chronic diseases of the stomach, the thyroid gland and the pancreas (diabetes mellitus), as well as in neurological-psychiatric disorders and genetic or teratogenic disorders as a result of low-level doses of radiation. These are ignored by governments.
2. Health risks due to the consumption of radioactively contaminated foodstuffs 2.1. There are no safe value limits
In general, there is no limit below which radioactivity can cause no damage. This has been accepted scientific doctrine for decades. In its defined rules for the calculation of radiation doses, the German Radiation Protection Ordinance delineates dose-effect relationships down to the smallest dose of radiation, thus taking this fact for granted.3 Even the smallest doses of radiation are not ‘harmless’, ‘benign’ or ‘unobjectionable’.
Radiation dose data expressed in sieverts (Sv) are a measure of the harmful potential of radiation exposure and serve to calculate radiation damage. In setting limits or maximum levels, officials are determining the number of ill and dead – of human sacrifices – that seem acceptable to them. In contrast to chemical toxins, the level of radiation exposure in the case of small doses of radiation (up to several tens of millisieverts) says nothing about the possible severity of the illnesses that develop as a result, but only something about the possible number of people who will become sick within an exposed group. The so-called effective dose only takes fatalities into account. The number of people suffering from illness is higher, since not everyone dies. Those who get cancer develop illness in its fullest form. Yet for the individual who is affected, it appears to be random. One speaks therefore of stochastic radiation damage, in contrast to deterministic damage, which occurs with higher doses of radiation where their level determines the expression of the acute radiation sickness. When it is said that there is “no acute danger,” this means simply that there is no danger of acute radiation sickness. An elevated risk for stochastic radiation damage may nonetheless exist (cancer, leukemia, and so forth). “No acute danger” therefore means anything but “all clear.”
The minimization principle means that as little radioactivity as possible should be absorbed. Adherence to the permissible value limits set by the EU does not guarantee health safety.
In the wake of Chernobyl, independent experts therefore recommended food with at most 30 to 50 becquerels total cesium activity per kilogram for adults and at most 10 to 20 becquerels per kilogram for children and nursing and pregnant women, based on the regulations of the German Radiation Protection Ordinance of 1976, which was then in force. A 50 percent share of cesium-134 and a 1 percent share of strontium-90 were assumed, based on the activity content of cesium-137 in foodstuffs, and plutonium was not taken into account. However, the actual amount of strontium in food was higher, as measurements taken by the Strahlenmessstelle [independent radiation measuring station] in Berlin revealed after Chernobyl. Therefore, and also because of uncertainty regarding the basis for evaluation, it was usually recommended that a maximum of only 5 becquerels of total cesium activity per kilogram should be in children’s dietary intake.4
The results of analyses from Japan published so far show that the distribution of radionuclides from fallout in foodstuffs appears to be different from that in Germany after Chernobyl; because of the higher percentage of short-lived cesium-134 it is more damaging. This too makes a new risk assessment necessary.
3 Ordinance for the implementation of EURATOM Directives on Radiation Protection (Radiation Protection Ordinance – StrlSchV) from 20 July 2001 (BGBl. I, p. 1714), reported on 22 April 2002 (BGBl. I, p. 1459), amended by Art. 3 of the law from 13 December 2007 (BGBl. I, p. 2930), last amended by Art. 2 of the law from 26 August 2008 (BGBl. I, p. 1793).
4 Strahlentelex 11/1987, 18 June 1987.
2.2. Overview of important radionuclides
The absorption of radionuclides through foodstuffs is long-term the most significant source of contamination after a nuclear disaster. Therefore, especially those radionuclides with longer half-lives must be observed, yet not all are sufficiently taken into consideration. Cesium- 137 and cesium-134 are particularly easy to identify because of the percentage of gamma rays they emit during radioactive decay, and are therefore used as so-called lead nuclides or indicator nuclides, which signal radioactive contamination. For physiological reasons, it is also necessary to pay special attention to strontium-90, as well as to iodine-131, which has a relatively short half-life, but is nonetheless disseminated in high concentrations at the beginning. Lastly, with its especially long half-life, plutonium is particularly radiotoxic.
Iodine is an essential trace element found in practically all living creatures. It is necessary for the maintenance of cell functions and for the production of thyroid hormones. Iodine-131, released in a reactor meltdown, takes the place of natural iodine in organisms and is stored in high concentrations in the thyroid. A steep increase in thyroid function disorders and an especially aggressive form of thyroid cancer, in both children and adults, were therefore the first particularly noticeable effects of radioactive contamination after the Chernobyl catastrophe.5
Since the beginning of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, radioactive cesium-137 has been detected in all living creatures. In 1959 and 1964, concentration peaks in mammals were found at levels up to eight times higher than cesium-137 values in 1962. It was shown that nearly 100 percent of the radioactivity absorbed by the body came from food, and the quantitative proportion of cesium to chemically similar potassium was on average double the corresponding quantitative proportion in food. Despite having a biological half-life of only about 100 days in the human body, radiocesium does accumulates to a certain extent. Muscle cells in particular prefer cesium to potassium. Weighed against one another, muscles exhibit the highest cesium radioactivity, followed by the liver, heart, spleen, reproductive organs, lungs and brain.6
Strontium-90 is a pure beta emitter and therefore has a radiotoxic effect in the body only after absorption (through food). Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium and thus replaces it, becoming incorporated into bone structure. From there, it contaminates the organ responsible for producing blood, the red bone marrow. Due to its long biological half-life (many months to a year), strontium – in contrast to radiocesium – gradually accumulates more, building up a considerable potential for danger, even if food contains only scant verifiable traces. Its high radiotoxicity is reflected in high official dose factors, set about 10 times higher than those for radiocesium, although their decay energy is the same. The high-energy particle radiation of strontium-90 during decay contaminates the red bone marrow in particular. The results can be disorders of blood production and immune systems as well as leukemia.3,7
Plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances produced by human beings – both in respect to its radioactive toxicity and its use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The radioactive toxicity of plutonium outweighs by far its chemical toxicity, which is comparable to that of other heavy metals. If inhaled, there is a high probability that reactor plutonium will cause lung cancer.
5 E. Lengfelder, E. Demidschik, J. Demidschik, K. Becker, H. Rabes and L. Birukowa, “10 Jahre nach der Tschernobyl-Katastrophe: Schilddrüsenkrebs und andere Folgen für die Gesundheit in der GUS” [10 Years After the Chernobyl Disaster: Thyroid Cancer and Other Consequences on Health in the C.I.S.], Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 138 (15), 1996, pp. 259-264.
6 Jacqueline Burkhardt, Erich Wirth, Bundesgesundheitsamt, Institut für Strahlenhygiene [German Federal Health Office, Institute for Radiation Hygiene], ISH-Heft 95, September 1986; see also Strahlentelex 39, 18 August 1988, pp. 2, 5. 7 Roland Scholz, “Bedrohung des Lebens durch radioaktive Strahlung” [The Threat to Life From Radiation], IPPNW Studienreihe, Vol. 4, 1997.
Up to 50 or 60 percent of the mass of reactor plutonium consists of plutonium-239, a good 20 percent of plutonium-240 and about 15 percent of plutonium-241. Plutonium-238 is present only in a magnitude of about 2 percent. However, because of the different half-lives of individual plutonium isotopes, mass ratios do not correspond to activity ratios. In that regard, plutonium-241 leads with about 98 percent, followed by plutonium-238 with about 1.6 percent, plutonium-239 with 0.25 percent and plutonium-240 with 0.32 percent. Alpha disintegrations are especially relevant from a radiological point of view. In its poorly soluble form (for example as plutonium oxide), plutonium-238 is much more quickly redistributed from the lungs into the bones and liver and reaches higher concentrations there than plutonium-239. Nonetheless, the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP) treats all plutonium isotopes the same in its model calculations.8
More soluble compounds like plutonium nitrate make their way increasingly into the food chain, since plants absorb them from soil more easily than poorly soluble plutonium compounds. On the other hand, poorly soluble compounds ingested with food are for the most part quickly excreted. Since plutonium is relatively firmly bound in soil, absorption by plants occurs only to a relatively minor extent. Plutonium is therefore absorbed into the body mainly through the inhalation of tiny airborne particles.
Radionuclid Half-life Decay type Decay products e
H-3 13.32 years β- He-3 (stable) (Tritium) I-131 8.02 days β- Xe-131 (stable) I-134 52.5 β- Xe-134 (stable)
Cs-137 30.17 years β- Ba-137 (stable) Cs-134 2.06 years β- Ba-134 (stable) Xe-133 5.25 days β- Cs-133 (stable)
Kr-85 10.76 years β- Rb-85 (stable) Sr-90 28.78 years β- Y-90 Zr-90
(stable) Sr-89 50.53 days β- Y-89 (stable)
Te-129m 33,6 days β- I-129 Xe-129 (stable)
Fe-55 2.73 years ε, Mn-55 (stable) Pu-238 87.7 years α U-234 Th-230
etc. Pu-239 24,110 α U-235 Th-
years 231 etc. Pu-241 14.35 years β- Am-241 etc.
Am-241 432.3 years α Np-237 etc.
2.3. ‘Natural’ radiation and artificial radionuclides
We are unavoidably exposed to a certain amount of radiation. We can hardly escape cosmic and terrestrial radiation, radiation within the body from potassium-40, and radon gas from the uranium decay series and its decay products. Nonetheless, this natural background radiation is not an absolute quantity. For example, we can reduce our exposure to cosmic radiation by flying less frequently. Uranium and its decay products become more dangerous because of human activities such as mining and processing, allowing them to be more easily absorbed with food, air and water. Furthermore, the meaning of the term ‘background radiation’ is not clearly defined. It is standard practice in the United States to attribute radioactive substances released from a nuclear plant to ‘background radiation’ if it still has not subsided after a year.10
In Germany, adults are exposed on average to about 2.1 millisieverts of radiation from natural sources each year. The use of radiation in medical diagnosis means that an average dose of about 1.8 millisieverts yearly can be added to this. These are the values which have been used more or less constantly for years in reports on environmental radiation and radioactive exposure published by the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz [German federal office for radiation protection].
Potassium, for example, is retained in the human body in constant, restricted concentration limits. Only every ten-thousandth potassium atom is the radioactive isotope potassium-40, which decays at a half-life of 1.28 billion years. While potassium is an element vital to natural life, radionuclides such as cesium-137 and cesium-134, in contrast, do not occur in nature. They are generated artificially in nuclear reactors, and after being released during nuclear accidents, they also impact on human beings. Furthermore, fallout from the atmospheric nuclear testing that took place up to the mid-1960s contained about equal amounts of strontium-90 and cesium-137. Before the Chernobyl reactor catastrophe, about 1000 becquerels of cesium-137 per square meter of land surface were present throughout Europe. The fallout from Chernobyl raised these contamination levels, for example in northern Germany and around Berlin, to about 4000 to 5000 and in southern Germany, for example around Munich, to 40,000 or more becquerels of radiocesium per square meter of land.11
Plutonium is yet another artificially produced chemical element that rarely occurs in nature. Only in uranium ore do we find traces of plutonium dating back to the early geological history of the planet, present at a ratio of one plutonium atom to one trillion uranium atoms. In the entire crust of the earth, there are only 2 to 3 grams of ancient plutonium. Today, plutonium is produced by the ton, above all for military purposes.
The atmospheric nuclear bomb tests that took place until the mid-1960s distributed an estimated 6 tons of man-made plutonium-239 over the earth’s surface.12
10 Rosalie Bertell, Keine akute Gefahr? [No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth], Goldmann, 1987, p. 39. 11 Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umweltschutz Berlin [Berlin Senate Office for Urban Development and Environmental Protection] (ed.), “Radioaktivität im Boden (Cäsium-134 und Cäsium- 137)” [Radioactivity in Soil (Cesium-134 and Cesium-137)], Umweltatlas Berlin, March 1992; E. Lengfelder, “Strahlenwirkung – Strahlenrisiko, Daten, Bewertung und Folgerungen aus ärztlicher Sicht” [Effect of Radiation – Radiation Risks, Data, Assessment, and Consequences From a Physician’s Point of View], maps, ecomed 1990.
12 “Verfassungsklage gegen Plutonium-Nutzung” [Complaint of Unconstitutionality Against the Use of Plutonium], Strahlentelex 35/1988 (after R. Steinberg, S. de Witt, “Antrag an das Bundesverfassungsgericht in Sachen Dr. H.-J. Vogel et al. 179 Mitglieder des Deutschen Bundestages” [Application to the German Constitutional Court in the Matter of H.-J. Vogel and 179 Members of the German Bundestag], 21 April 1988, Frankfurt a.M./Freiburg, PR. No. 2424.87.T.; H. Kuni, “Die Gefahr von Strahlenschäden durch Plutonium” [The Threat of Radiation Damage From Plutonium], 15 December 1987, Marburg; B. Splieth, “Strahlenbelastung durch Plutonium: Alte und neue Abschätzungsverfahren” [Exposure to Radiation From Plutonium: Old and New Assessment Procedures], Symposium über die Wirkung niedriger Strahlendosen auf den Menschen [Symposium on the Effects of Low-level Doses of Radiation on Humans], Univ. Marburg, 27 February 1988).
Email to Friend
Fill in the form below to send this fact sheet to a friend: