Peter Roche's recent article about discharges from Sellafield was wide of the mark, writes Stewart Eldon, the British ambassador
I am well aware of the concerns in Ireland about Sellafield. But it is important to remember that many of those concerns are UK concerns, too. We have no wish to pollute our own waters, or those of any other country. Nor do we ignore our international commitments.
The debate over Sellafield needs to be based on the scientific facts. Ireland's own expert body, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, has repeatedly stated its clear view that those discharges pose no significant risk to the health of people in Ireland and that there is no threat from consuming seafood taken from the Irish Sea.
In 1998, the United Kingdom made a commitment to reduce radioactive discharges in the period to 2020. These are reductions on top of the 99 per cent reductions in discharges that have already been achieved. This is something to which the government remains committed. Last year we published a detailed strategy paper that sets out how these further reductions in discharges are to be achieved within the timetable agreed at talks in Sintra, Portugal.
Discharges are being reduced wherever this is practicable. We recognise there may need to be some short-term increases in certain discharges as plants are decommissioned. This is inevitable when plants are taken out of service. It is not possible to carry out work to treat wastes effectively and to decommission plants without some level of discharge. But we seek to ensure these are kept to an absolute minimum and in all cases they must remain within authorised annual limits set by the Environment Agency.
The total amount of radioactivity that is actually discharged in any one year will vary depending on the nature of work done during that year and other operational factors. But to put such discharges in perspective, it is important to remember that aerial and liquid discharges from all disposals of radioactivity account for less than 0.1 per cent of the annual radiation dose received by people in the United Kingdom. The figures for people in Ireland will, of course, be very much lower still.
Mr Roche (May 19th) claims that the UK could not meet its Sintra commitments unless the THORP reprocessing plant ceased to operate. Again he is wrong.
The question of whether or not THORP will in fact continue to operate for an extended period is a quite separate one.
The government made clear in last year's white paper on Managing the Nuclear Legacy that we would have to approve any proposals for new contracts for THORP and that we would only do so if we were satisfied that these would be consistent with a range of objectives for the Sellafield site and with the United Kingdom's environmental commitments and international obligations.
The United Kingdom takes its responsibilities towards protecting the environment very seriously. Greenpeace is wrong to suggest otherwise. The United Kingdom has in place a detailed strategy for meeting its OSPAR \ commitments as these relate to discharges of radioactivity and we will be happy to explain that strategy at the forthcoming ministerial meeting in June.
Against this background and that of wider British environmental policy, it is difficult to see how the UK could be tagged the "Dirty Man of Europe". As for dishonesty, your readers should make up their minds on the basis of the facts, not Mr Roche's rhetoric.
• Stewart Eldon is the British ambassador to Ireland