In his previous Guardian article Monbiot reassures himself about the Fukushima accident claiming that nobody had “yet received a lethal dose of radiation”, “as far as we know”. The on-site workers seem to think they have and are reportedly preparing themselves for death, but then they haven’t seen Monbiot’s article. Here, Monbiot continues his “deeply-troubling discovery” that nuclear power is safe. Why would that be troubling- I find the potential deaths of millions, or even thousands, a lot more troubling. Monbiot finds his “discovery”that such fears are unfounded troubling because it shows that some scientists are challenging the “consensus” established by bodies he cites as being authoritative, all of which happen to be closely connected to the UN.

Those of us who know the position of such bodies will therefore find nothing new in this Monbiot article other than his claim that deformities and genetic mutations, known to result from exposure to nuclear radiation, occurring within an area centering around Chernobyl in the aftermath of Chernobyl cannot be proved to have been caused by Chernobyl. Here he shows himself to be a student of the sceptical, Scottish philosopher, David Hume, who claimed that causality could never be verified. In the absence of any other explanation  most of us would regard Chernobyl as, at least, the main suspect and Monbiot is unable to even suggest one.

As with the case of the IPCC Monbiot is overoptimistic in his claim of a consensus around the views of the UN bodies. I haven’t matched Monbiot’s exploit of reading the full report of the National Academy of Science but their own summary claims of nuclear radiation that “no level should be considered “safe.”” This, of course, contradicts all the claims of the UN bodies, and all who defer to them, that there are safe levels. But Monbiot finds support in their position based on his claim that it is not the same as the position of Helen Caldicott. He doesn’t really say what her position is although it looks like they are as one regarding “no safe levels”. That would be enough anyway to convince people that this technology is highly dangerous, dangerous enough to make Fukushima a planetary health hazard.

But the authorities say there are safe levels and that is good enough for the anti-establishment,radical Monbiot. In fact, its good enough for him to morph into an attack dog on their behalf. That there can be a scientific officialdom subordinate to corporate or elite interests and the the standing of those bodies is a function of their subordinatron to those interests is beyond Monbiot. In this,unfortunately, he is not untypical of the left who have a naive faith in scientific, medical or academic bodies, in professional society in general, of which, more often than not, they are issue.

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

George Monbiot

Guardian

5th April, 2011

Over the last fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week withHelen Caldicott. Dr Caldicott is the world’s foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott’s response has profoundly shaken me.

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink – in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation(Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation. The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, including four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia.

In the rest of the population there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children – arising “almost entirely” from the Soviet Union’s failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131. Otherwise “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure”. People living in the countries affected today “need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident”.

Caldicott told me that Unscear’s work on Chernobyl is “a total cover-up”. Though I have pressed her to explain, she has yet to produce a shred of evidence for this contention.

In a column last week, the Guardian’s environment editor, John Vidal, angrily denounced my position on nuclear power. On a visit to Ukraine in 2006, he saw “deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards … adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers”. What he did not see was evidence that these were linked to the Chernobyl disaster.

Professor Gerry Thomas, who worked on the health effects of Chernobyl for Unscear, tells me there is “absolutely no evidence” for an increase in birth defects. The National Academy paper Dr Caldicott urged me to read came to similar conclusions. It found that radiation-induced mutation in sperm and eggs is such a small risk “that it has not been detected in humans, even in thoroughly studied irradiated populations such as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”.

Like Vidal and many others, Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document that looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate-change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid. It is distressing to discover that when the facts don’t suit them, members of this movement resort to the follies they have denounced.

We have a duty to base our judgments on the best available information. This is not only because we owe it to other people to represent the issues fairly, but also because we owe it to ourselves not to squander our lives on fairytales. A great wrong has been done by this movement. We must put it right.