Madam, - Prof Philip Walton (November 11th) makes the point that misinformation about nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl, has caused misconceptions about its safety and its ability to help solve the problem of satisfying energy demand without damaging our environment.
Unlike other accidents, such as plane crashes, dam failures, mining disasters, etc, the health and environmental consequences of nuclear accidents take time to confirm because much radiation damage cannot be determined until years, even decades, after the exposure. An exception, of course, is severe radiation exposure, which, thankfully, is rare.
The accidents which have coloured our view of nuclear energy are: the Windscale fire (1957); the partial meltdown of the core of a reactor at Three Mile Island in the US (1979); and, of course, the Chernobyl disaster (1986).
We now know that there were no serious after-effects for human health or the environment in the cases of the first two accidents. This is based on published epidemiological, environmental and other scientific studies.
Although the same cannot be said about Chernobyl, its effects have been greatly exaggerated over the years and this is plain to see in the recent report of the Chernobyl Forum.
Experts from the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, the World Health Organisation and seven other UN organisations have sifted through the evidence over the past two years and have comprehensively described their findings.
Among these is that the majority of the 700,000 rescue workers and the 5 million residents of the contaminated areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia received relatively minor doses which are comparable to natural background levels.
Of the few hundred rescue workers and reactor operators who received high doses some 50 have died - not thousands or even tens of thousands as hitherto believed by many people. Also, there was no evidence of congenital disease. Several thousand cases of thyroid cancer were found in children, of which 99 per cent are reported to have been successfully treated.
Finally, radiation levels in the Chernobyl environment have reduced by a factor of several hundred due to both natural processes and countermeasures taken by the authorities. The majority of the contaminated land is now safe for living and working.
The risks of nuclear power must be put into the perspective of increased difficulties with the supply of oil and gas and the consequences of detrimental climate change, which I expect will be more dramatically revealed in about 12 months' time when the International Panel on Climate Change releases its next report.
I hope that politicians will act on Prof Walton's message. An in-depth examination of the potential of nuclear power to alleviate impending energy shortages would be a sensible first step. No energy option can be ignored. - Yours, etc,
FRANK TURVEY , Church Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow.