, , , , , , , , ,

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) chooses standards which are largely used for radiological “protection” in the nuclear and medical field. Its “Committee 4 is concerned with providing advice on the application of the recommended system of protection in all its facets for occupational and public exposure.http://www.icrp.org/icrp_group.asp?id=10 And, yet, the safety director for the world’s largest publicly traded uranium company serves on this committee, along with a laundry list of apparent nuclear advocates, with few, if any, exceptions.
Cameco Areva U Mine exported to google from wikipedia
Cameco-Areva’s McArthur River Underground Uranium Mine

Cameco Corporation is the world’s largest publicly traded uranium company, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. In 2012, it was the world’s third largest uranium producer, accounting for 14% of world production.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McArthur_River_uranium_mine.

Cameco came under fire from Commissioners and intervenors for its handling of the April 6, 2003 cave-in and flood of radioactive water at the McArthur River mine, the world’s largest uranium mine.http://www.miningwatch.ca/cameco-comes-under-fire-mismanagement-mcarthur-river-uranium-mine. See also: http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopcdn.html

McArthur River is 70% Cameco and 30% Areva, itself about 89% French government owned. And, of course, who is the Secretary of this ICRP safety implementation committee – a member of the French Nuclear “Regulator”!

engraving by Gustave Doré illustrating Canto XXXIV of Divine Comedy, Inferno, by Dante Alighieri. Caption: Lucifer, King of Hell, 1861–1868
Engraving by Gustave Doré illustrating Canto XXXIV of Divine Comedy, Inferno, by Dante Alighieri. Caption: Lucifer, King of Hell, 1861–1868 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)

Here is the list of the ICRP Nuclear Gallows Comedians:
The Chair for Application of the Commission’s Recommendations is from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, which the ICRP web site has as “Nucular”. That could be ok, to err is human, but there’s no room for error – clerical or other – when dealing with something as dangerous as radiation. Another typo which the NRC has refused to rectify for over a month is very dangerous. It too appears to be a clerical cut and past error, but the US NRC was on our web site, at the post, over a month ago and has failed to correct it: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-dangerous-us-nrc-typo-making-low-level-radioactive-waste-more-radioactive-than-allowed-at-wipp/ The NRC guy’s name is Dr Donald A Cool, but his name doesn’t really matter as he is part of what academics call regulatory capture, which sounds innocuous until you watch it in action.

One of multiple examples of US NRC Regulatory Capture was at a recent hearing regarding the dangers of the Davis Besse nuclear reactor’s cracked concrete external containment building. Only the Toledo Blade has been good enough to clue us in on it: “NRC attorneys, headed by Catherine Kanatas, concurred with FirstEnergy’s assertion that the points raised by activists are not relevant and should be dismissed.http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2014/11/13/Panel-questions-Davis-Besse-attorneys-officials-on-safety.html This fails to explain that the so-called activists had expert witnesses-information. Besides, the containment is shaped like a silo and so would be pressured by heavy snow. The Cleveland area just got about a foot of snow. So, why IS the US taxpayer paying for lawyers to defend a corporation against public safety? The 2 1/2 ft (less than one meter) containment is not protective of an aviation hit, either. In the context of spent fuel rods, 36 inches (approx one meter) of concrete was modeled as being penetrated, which is a no-brainer, anyway. And, the new AREVA inner containment is even thinner than the old one which developed a hole in the lid the size of a football. The new containment is 1 1/2 inches thick! It’s not difficult for anyone to imagine the outer cracked concrete collapsing under snow and hitting the inner containment. No brainer there.

The Secretary of this Committee is, of course, from Nuclear France’s equivalent to the NRC- France who OWNS 89% of the largest nuclear company – AREVA, along with 85% of EDF – another nuclear player which owns all but one of the nuclear power stations in the UK, as well as all of the French ones. (The Sec is Mr Jean-Francois Lecomte, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), France). Oh, great, he’s a LAWYER and HISTORIAN: http://irpa-egypt.com/cv/bio%20Lecomte.pdf Maybe that’s better than being part of the nuclear x-mines clique of such importance for nuclear France, but it is not reassuring. The French, like most Europeans, specialize early so he probably has no science background at all.

Then as a general member there is: John Takala, Safety Director of Cameco Corporation, Canada. He commented to the ICRP as a Cameco rep: “Cameco is one of the world’s largest uranium producers accounting for about 16% of the world’s production. Cameco has controlling ownership of the world’s largest high-grade uranium reserves and low-cost operations in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. We are also the largest US producer with in situ recovery operations in Wyoming and Nebraska. In Kazakhstan, production at the Inkai joint venture is ramping up to its initial approved capacity. Cameco holds premier land positions in the world’s most promising areas for new uranium discoveries in Canada and Australia as part of an intensive global exploration program. Cameco is also a leading provider of processing services required to produce fuel for nuclear power plants, and generates 1,000 MW of … electricity through a partnership in North America’s largest nuclear generating station located in Ontario, Canada.http://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid=%7BE2EFC367-00C7-4ED2-93A4-407FE69D2430%7D

Other General Members:

Oh may God help us! It’s Michael Boyd, the US EPA man who either through ignorance or intent has turned the entire idea of radiation protection upside down. Ionizing radiation is not an all you can eat buffet – more radiation is not better, as he intentionally or inadvertently argues! His apparent misunderstanding could cost lives, even in the short-term. Indeed he appears to know the all you can eat buffets better than radiation protection. Knowing that a higher dose is more dangerous is the whole basis of radiation protection. For elaboration regarding Boyd see: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/nuclear-effective-dose-radiation-icrp-vs-us-epa/ A look around the Internet suggests that Boyd worked hard at brown nosing the nuclear industry and maybe that’s how he got this position.

A Swiss radiology professor, at least willing to take on the French over their BS in the Arafat case, is member: http://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/killing-arafat/swiss-french-arafat-conclusion-debatable-201312515585837332.html Prof François Bochud, IRA CHUV, Switzerland (Lausanne) Maybe Dr. Bochud will explain to Mr. Boyd that more radiation is not better?

Mark Doruff (USA) who works for GE in Medical Devices. However, GE is also in the nuclear industry via GE-Hitachi.

Prof. Eduardo Gallego of Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain, along with others in “Revising the Emergency Management Requirements for new generation reactorsProgress in Nuclear Energy (Impact Factor: 0.7) 03/2014; 71:160–171 appears to want to reduce evacuation zones “without loss of safety level“, by coming up with “new methodology“. Any more sick jokes?

Analia Canoba of the Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (ARN), Argentina on NORM: http://www.icrp.org/docs/Analia%20Canoba%20NORM%20Survey%20in%20Argentina.pdf

Kun-Woo Cho of the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety appears to think that one cancer per 100 people is the scientific understanding of safe. Was that Korean Nuclear worker falling into a drain and drowning ok too? Notice that the one in 100 is for low-LET and alpha emitters such as plutonium are high LET. He, along with several other members, appears to think that radiation safety is mostly a communications issue. In his “Understanding the Environmental Effects of the Fukushima Disaster through Science and Technology“, he states that “A BEIR VII report suggested that approximately one instance of cancer per 100 people could result from a single exposure to 100 mSv of low-LET radiation background.” But then goes on to say that “the scientific understanding is that 100 mSv is the borderline between safe and unsafe, while the public and political understanding is that any level is on the borderline between safe and unsafe. This kind of confusion and misperception regarding radiation risk” Article in: “Science and Technology to Prevent and Respond to CBRN Disasters: ROK and US Perspectives” Ed. Park Jiyoung, July 2014, Asan Report

Toshimitsu Homma of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japan seems to have more sense: “lesson learned from the Fukushima experience is that human health effects can be protected by appropriate emergency response, but land contamination can not be avoided at a severe nuclear accident.” He also says that the December 2003, “Interim Report on the Discussion of Safety Goals” issued by the NSC stated that “The average risk of cancer fatality for members of the public within a certain distance from a nuclear facility due to radiation exposure from nuclear accidents should not exceed approximately one in 1000000 a year.” From “ICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection” October 24-26, 2011 – Bethesda, MD, USA Toshimitsu Homma ICRP Committee 4 http://www.icrp.org/docs/Toshimitsu%20Homma%20Experiences%20of%20Fukushima%20Accident.pdf That is one in a million and not one in one hundred.

Dr Michiaki Kai, Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Japan, works with RERF which studies the victims of the nuclear bombs in Japan: http://www.rerf.jp/intro/org/scicnl_e.html

Professor Senlin Liu
China Institute of Atomic Energy, China

Shockingly, from nuclear free Ireland we get someone who also appears to think that communication is the biggest issue and appears to want to gloss over nuclear dangers too: Dr Ann McGarry, Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/2011/NEWS-07-presentations/4%20Session%201-3%20Ann%20McGarry.pdf

From the Nuclear UK: Dr Anne Nisbet, Public Health England, UK

Prof Deborah Oughton of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway may be ok. A list of her publications is here for those with more time: http://www.umb.no/ansatt/cv/deborah.oughton.pdf?1415696557

Thiagan Pather of South Africa appears involved in evaluating proposed nuclear power stations, etc. for South Africa. He wears many hats.

Dr Sergey Shinkarev of the Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Russian Federation, has been very involved in Chernobyl Research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Shinkarev%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23560632

The names come from: http://www.icrp.org/icrp_group.asp?id=10. We found and added many of the links. The original text is found at the bottom of this post.

One critically important subcommittee:
Task Group 97
Application of the Commission’s Recommendations for Surface and Near Surface Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste

The mandate of this Task Group is to prepare a publication, in conjunction with the waste management community that describes in plain language and clarifies the application of the Commission’s recommendations for the protection of the public and workers (Publications 101 & 103) as well as the environment (Publication 124) as applicable to surface and near surface disposal of radioactive waste. The report will be a companion to Publication 122.

The publication will discuss:

How the fundamental radiation protection principles are to be applied over the life cycle of surface and near surface disposal including the transitioning from planned exposure to existing exposure situation in the case of a loss of institutional control.

Application of the graded approach in implementing the protection principles and advice in all facets of a facility’s life cycle, based on the hazard posed, including the degree of isolation of the waste.

Dialogue amongst regulators, implementers and relevant stakeholder’s concerning the practical implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

The new publication will be drafted as a standalone document in coherence with Publication 122 without unnecessary repetition. The objective is to complement the previous publication.

The publication will consider Publications 46, 77, and 81 in light of the Commission’s current recommendations, taking into account recent international experience. CC-BY-SA-3.0, Emphasis our own: http://www.icrp.org/icrp_group.asp?id=89
Another subcommittee group: http://www.icrp.org/icrp_group.asp?id=90
The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection “ICRP Publication 103” gives translations for free but only the summary in English free: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103

From the original text:
Active Groups under
Committee 4

Task Group 76
Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to NORM (Naturally Occuring Radioactive Material)

Task Group 83
Protection of Aircraft Crew against Cosmic Radiation Exposure

Task Group 93
Update of ICRP Publication 109 and 111

Task Group 94
Ethics of radiological protection

Task Group 97
Application of the Commission’s Recommendations for Surface and Near Surface Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste

Task Group 98
Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to Exposures Resulting from Contaminated Sites from Past Industrial, Military and Nuclear Activities”

Committee 4
Application of the Commission’s Recommendations
Committee 4 is concerned with providing advice on the application of the recommended system of protection in all its facets for occupational and public exposure. It also acts as the major point of contact with other international organisations and professional societies concerned with protection against ionising radiation.

Summaries of Committee 4 meetings:

Chicago 2014 http://www.icrp.org/admin/Summary%20of%20July%202014%20C4%20Meeting%20Chicago.pdf
Abu Dhabi 2013 http://www.icrp.org/admin/Summary%20of%20Oct%202013%20C4%20Meeting%20Abu%20Dhabi.pdf
Moscow 2012 http://www.icrp.org/admin/Summary%20of%20Sept%202012%20C4%20Meeting%20Moscow.pdf
Bethesda 2011 http://www.icrp.org/admin/C4%20Meeting%20Summary%20Bethesda%20October%202011.pdf
Geneva 2010 http://www.icrp.org/admin/C4%20Meeting%20Summary%20Nov%202010.pdf

Dr Donald A Cool
Nucular Regulatory Commission (NRC), USA
Curriculum Vitae http://www.icrp.org/cv/%7B32A9A072-BEE4-4DC2-B4C7-05CA30FF9FA4%7D/Cool_CV.pdf

Mr Jean-Francois Lecomte
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), France


Prof François Bochud
IRA CHUV, Switzerland
Business Address
Rue du Grand-Pré 1
CH-1007 Lausanne

Michael Boyd

Analia Canoba
Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (ARN), Argentina

Kun-Woo Cho
KINS, Korea
Curriculum Vitae http://www.icrp.org/cv/{65E5E104-4D28-4283-A433-43DA31DDDB70}/Kunwoo%20CHO%20CV-short-20140212.pdf
Business Address
Senior Advisor
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety
PO Box 114, Yuseong
Daejeon, Korea, 305-338
Telephone and E-mail
kwcho@kins.re.kr (Office)

Mark Doruff

Prof. Eduardo Gallego
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain

Toshimitsu Homma
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japan

Dr Michiaki Kai
Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Japan

Professor Senlin Liu
China Institute of Atomic Energy, China

Dr Ann McGarry
Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland

Dr Anne Nisbet
Public Health England, UK

Prof Deborah Oughton
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

Thiagan Pather
South Africa

Dr Sergey Shinkarev
Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Russian Federation

John Takala
Cameco Corporation, Canada
Telephone and E-mail
306-956-6486 (Office)
john_takala@cameco.com (Main email)
john_takala@cameco.com (Office)

CC-BY-SA 3.0 http://www.icrp.org/icrp_group.asp?id=10