Can nuclear power ever comply with the human right to health? Part I

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Spanish. 1949.A FIRST OF ITS KIND REPORT

In the continuing wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations sent Special Rapporteur on the right to health (a position created in 2002) Anand Grover to assess Japan’s compliance with human rights principles; specifically “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. His visit took place between November 15 and 26, 2012 with permission of the Government of Japan.

The report on the Fukushima disaster appears to represent the first time a United Nations investigation has linked health impacts of industrial radiation from a nuclear catastrophe to human rights. The Special Rapporteur has issued several recommendations for improvement in the following areas:

1. nuclear emergency response
2. detail and management of health surveys
3. dose limits of radiation
4. access to accurate information on radiation and its health effects
5. transparency and accountability of the nuclear industry
6. participation of affected communities in the decision-making process

This is the first part of a Beyond Nuclear exploration into how the Special Rapporteur’s (SR’s) recommendations and conclusions may apply to nuclear power and human rights compliance beyond the Fukushima catastrophe. Many aspects of the SR’s report are groundbreaking and speak directly to the shortcomings of our current assumptions on radiation and health not only in regard to events in Japan, but also in the context of radiation protection worldwide. A number of the recommendations, if applied worldwide, would remove nuclear proponents’ proclivity for undermining human rights (in this instance the right to health) in their feverish attempts to prop up a waning industry. Note the compliance of nuclear energy is still unexplored with regard to UN charters that lay out the rights of women and the rights of the child. But ultimately, the report recommendations on health pose, perhaps unintentionally, a silent but extremely important question:

Is it possible for the nuclear power industry and government proponents to comply with the UN definition of the right to health, or must they always exist in violation of these principles?

Let’s first examine some of the report recommendations and how they counter current nuclear sector practice.

Workers attempt to clean radiation from the TMI partial meltdownINVESTIGATE HEALTH IMPACTS OF EACH RADIOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE SEPARATELY

“Though experiences from the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents provide invaluable guidance, a narrow appreciation of the accidents would not provide proper guidance.” (p 9)

Health impacts from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, which is still releasing radiation, needs to be investigated separately from other nuclear catastrophes, like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, for a number of reasons. Studies on Chernobyl may not fully account for effects of contamination and radiation exposure because crucial information was not made public until 1990. Therefore, “...the right to health necessitates rigorous and prolonged monitoring of individual health, as the health effects of radiation exposure are not always immediately known or treatable...” (p 9) “The Special Rapporteur…encourages [the Government of Japan] to explore…health effects of radiation on children…” (p 11) that include chromosomal aberrations, increase in child and adult morbidity, impairment, leukemia and other childhood anomalies, fetal deaths, mental disability. Already health survey attempts in Japan have prematurely assumed no increase in child health anomalies or fetal death attributable to radiation exposure, based on incomplete Chernobyl research that showed no increase. They also wrongly assume no childhood health follow-up is necessary.

This recommendation is antithetical to how most experts assess radiation impacts on health and environment. Many of these experts, and the official bodies with which they work, possess conflicting interests. Comparing one set of health data (like that from the atomic bombings or Chernobyl) to a still-unfolding catastrophe like Fukushima, can lead to incorrect assumptions and misattribution of disease causation. Under these conditions, the real impact of radiation exposure is hidden and measures to ensure a healthy population are misdirected or not instituted at all.

Picture on a wall with ruined Chernobyl reactor in the backgroundConsider just two examples: that of CLL and thyroid cancer. An increase in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was found among Chernobyl liquidators, even though it was supposedly not found in the atomic bomb survivors. The lack of CLL in atomic bomb survivors has wrongfully negated compensation to US nuclear weapons workers who were exposed to radiation under different circumstances and subsequently contracted CLL. Also consider that researchers began examining the Chernobyl data with the assumption that they would find increases in thyroid abnormalities because an increase was present in those exposed to the atomic bombings. In this last instance the comparison was valid, whereas in the instance of CLL the comparison was misleading. This illustrates how previous accident data should be used as a guide, not as a bludgeon to stamp out any inconvenient or unexpected data collected after new catastrophes.

Fukushima evacueesStatistics used by the World Bank provide a litany of diseases which are more prevalent in Ukraine since the late 1980’s and are also more prevalent there than in other former Soviet states. These include heart and circulatory diseases, cancer, reduced life expectancy for females compared to males, infant mortality; the list continues. A number of these conditions are associated with radiation exposure according to various studies; and are among the SR’s list of diseases to be monitored post Fukushima. However, since the radiation health risk formulas for Chernobyl were largely based on atomic bomb studies which do not absolutely prove these connections, the health decline in Ukraine is attributed to a myriad of other causes, not radiation; not even as a partially responsible cause (a likely scenario). This is a case of data bludgeoning run amok.

PRECAUTION IS PREVENTION: DO NOT DISREGARD EVIDENCE THAT DISEASE CAN BE CAUSED BY LOW DOSES OF RADIATION

“…disregarding these findings diminishes the understanding of and increases vulnerability to health effects of long-term exposure to low-dose radiation.”  (p 6)

The report takes special care to repeat a number of times (pp 6,7,9, 10) that, although impacts of exposure to low-doses over a long time are not fully known, some studies do point to disease induction from chronic, low dose radiation. Therefore, evacuees should be advised to relocate to areas of contamination as far below 1mSv/year as possible and exposed populations must be monitored for such diseases. An official recognition that protection from low doses of radiation is a human right is revolutionary. This recommendation not only recognizes that avoidance of post-nuclear accident exposures is a right under the human rights framework, it also reaffirms the validity of the precautionary principle which states "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”  In its purest form, the precautionary principle is in agreement with the right to health. The political answer to scientific uncertainty is precaution.

This is contrary to what official radiation exposure committees like the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommend when deciding what is a “safe” exposure limit – a decision that incorporates economic considerations to the detriment of health through the principles of  “optimization” and “justification”.

NEXT TIME-- RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS: A CONVENIENT PRETEXT