Comptroller and Auditor General's (CAG) Report on AERB interpreted the Atomic Energy Act incorrectly

Comptroller and Auditor General's (CAG)  Report on AERB interpreted  the Atomic Energy Act incorrectly

By Dr K S Parthasarathy

Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

The recent  report of the  Comptroller and Auditor General ( CAG) on the activities of  the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) incorrectly interpreted   provisions regarding fines  in the Atomic Energy Act.  The report  stated that the maximum amount of fines (up to Rs 500/-) were too low to serve as deterrents against offences and contraventions related to nuclear and radiation facilities which involve substantial risks.

This conclusion  is wrong;  safety violations  of  the Atomic Energy Act are punishable  with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

Presently, I do not want to make comments on other parts of  the CAG  report  which requires detailed review and study.

In 1984, during the first discussion we had  among the handful of scientists and engineers who joined the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board ,  an officer drew our attention to the punishment for violations of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962.

As CAG report noted now, we also discovered the sub-section 30(3) of the Atomic Energy Act,which stated that "Rules made under this Act may provide that a contravention of the rules shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees".

We concluded unanimously just as CAG report did now, that the maximum amount of  fines were too low  to serve as deterrents.

Our "Eureka" moments and the glee of discovery were short-lived when one of the more alert officers discovered  the words save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in the same sub -section  quoted  in CAG report. The Audit team of CAG appears to have missed the importance of these words.

We found that  Section 24  has expressly made provisions for just and reasonable punishment for serious violations. Section 30(3) appears to refer to minor administrative lapses. Such provisions are available in most of the Acts

Section 24 on  Offences and Penalties states  that persons violating rules made under Section 17 (Special Provisions at to Safety) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. This is consistent with other similar legislation.

Violators may attract the same punishment, if they obstruct any person authorized by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 17 in the exercise of powers of inspection under that sub-section.

CAG's observation on fines for violations under the Atomic Energy Act  got wide publicity. The statement  that  the fine for a safety violation is a measly  Rs 500/- can obviously and rightly excite raw emotions.

Not surprisingly media reacted. However none looked at the Atomic Energy Act.

 Shri Pradeep Thakur, a Times of India columnist wrote thus:

"In case of a nuclear accident in India at present, the maximum fine that can be imposed by the regulator on an offending nuclear plant is Rs 500" (The Times of India August 23, 2012).

"CAG brings to light the meagre fine of just Rs 500 imposed on the defaulter in case of violation of any safety rules under the Atomic Energy Act". (Down to Earth, August 23, 2012).

The  CAG Report is  presently with each House of Parliament.

I have included relevant extracts of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 as an annexure. You may, if you so desire,  access the full text of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 at:

http://www.aerb.gov.in/cgi-bin/actsrules/aea.asp

Annexure

Extracts from the Atomic Energy Act 1962

Section 24.	Offences and Penalties
	(1)		Whoever -
		(a)	contravenes any order made under section 14 or any condition subject to which a licence is granted under that section; or
		(b)	contravenes any rules made under section 17 or any requirement, prohibition or restriction imposed under any such rule; or
		(c)	obstructs any person authorized by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 17 in the exercise of powers under that sub-section; or
		(d)	contravenes sub-section (2) of section 18;
			shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
	(2)		Whoever -
		(a)	fails to comply with any notice served on him under section 5 or with any terms and conditions that may be imposed on him under that section; or
		(b)	fails to comply with any notice served on him under section 7 or knowingly makes any untrue statement in any return or statement made in pursuance of any such notice; or
		(c)	obstructs any person or authority in the exercise of powers under section 8 or 9; or
		(d)	contravenes any other provision of this Act or any order made there under;
			shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.

Section 26.	Cognizance of offences
	(1)		All offences under this Act shall be cognizable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, but no action shall be taken in respect of any person for any offence under this Act except on the basis of a written complaint made -
		(a)	in respect of contravention of section 8, 14 or 17 or any rule or order made there under, by the person authorized to exercise powers of entry and inspection;
		(b)	in respect of any other contravention, by a person duly authorized to make such complaints by the Central Government.
	(2)		Proceedings in respect of contravention of section 18 shall not be instituted except with the consent of the Attorney General of India.

Section 30.	Power to make rules

(3)

Rules made under this Act may provide that a contravention of the rules shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act be punishable, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

The Hindu : Sci-Tech / Technology : A classic example of biased and unscientific study

The Hindu : Sci-Tech / Technology : A classic example of biased and unscientific study

A classic example of a biased and unscientific cell phone study

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article3808249.ece

S & T » TECHNOLOGY                            August 23, 2012

THE RECOMMENDATION: The mobile towers’ EMFexposure limit was recently lowered to 1/10th of the existing prescribed limit as a matter of abundant precaution. Photo: Nagara Gopal

For the past several years, there has been growing concern about the health impact of radiation from mobile towers. In 2008, Government of India adopted the Guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for Electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers.The values chosen for the permissible Power Density are 4.5 W/Sqm for 900 MHz and 9 W/Sqm. for 1800 MHz.

Based on media reports and public concerns, the Government set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of specialists on August 24, 2010. The Committee examined the environmental and health related concerns and indicated that most of the laboratory studies were unable to find a direct link between exposure to radio frequency radiation and health;and the scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause and effect relationship between radio frequency radiation and health. The effect of emission from cell phone towers is not known yet with certainty.

However, the IMC recommended lowering the mobile towers’ EMF exposure limits to 1/10th of the existing prescribed limit as a matter of abundant precaution. The Government accepted the recommendation and issued directions making the new norms applicable from September 1, 2012.

Among the inputs submitted to the Department of Telecom was a document "Report on Cell Tower Radiation" authored by Prof. Girish Kumar of the Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay.

The report listed symptoms and diseases allegedly caused by electromagnetic radiation. The only items not included in it were jealousy and baldness! The author mined part of the scary data from "papers" of Arthur Firstenberg, the founder director of the "Cellular phone task force" which is “dedicated to halting the expansion of wireless technology because it cannot be made safe". Firstenberg filed and lost many suits against the spread of wireless technology.

Wikipedia, noted his claim that electromagnetic fields from his neighbour's cell phone are destroying his health and that he sued his neighbour seeking damages $ 530,000 for refusing to turn off her cell phone and other electronic devices!Firstenberg is a symbol of the collective schizophrenia against RF radiation.

Prof. Kumar uncritically accepted the Bio-initiative Report 2007(BIR), a booklet well known for its lack of balance.

ADVOCACY DOCUMENT

The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR), a technical committee of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) noted that BIR is an advocacy document. BIR itself conceded that it was written “to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.”

Fourteen individuals under the direction of a 4-person organizing committee wrote BIR. “Most of its 21 sections are authored by single individuals or (in a few cases) pairs or trios of authors; the section ‘Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations’ was written by a pair of individuals and appears to reflect their views only,” COMAR clarified in a paper in Health Physics Journal. “There is no indication of how the members of the committee were chosen or how balance was provided in the group of contributors, a majority of whom have public records of criticism of existing exposure standards and guidelines.”

COMAR added that since appearing on the Internet in 2007, the BIR has received much media attention but, more recently, has been severely criticized by health organizations and scientific groups such as EMF-NET, a coordinating committee of the European Commission 6th Frame Work Programme, The Netherlands’ Health Council and Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research

BIR report was slammed by these agencies thus: “written in an alarmist and emotive language and the arguments have no scientific support from well-conducted EMF research;” “There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors’ statements and conclusions. It is “not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge;” and “As it stands it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent with the consensus of science.”

In May 2010, The INTERPHONE Study concluded that overall, no increase in risk of brain tumours was observed with the use ofmobile phones. “There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation", the authors added

The INTERPHONE study supported by WHO is the largest case–control study of mobile phones and brain tumours conducted to date, including the largest numbers of users with at least 10 years of exposure and the greatest cumulative hours of use of any study. Thirteen countries including UK, Sweden, France and Germany collaborated.

"Interphone study in 2010 mentions that excessive use of mobile phones has doubled to quadrupled brain tumor risk. However, they claim that for an average user, increase in cancer cases is not significant," the Prof. Kumar’s report says. By this assertion, the report is misinterpreting the lucid conclusion provided by the study

Prof. Kumar argued that the allowable power level must be brought down in India. "A number of adverse health effects have been documented at levels below the FCC guidelines, which include altered white blood cells in children; childhood leukemia; impaired motor function, reaction time, and memory; headaches, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, and insomnia etc", the report said, possibly based on the much criticized Bio-initiative Report 2007.

Prof. Kumar had cherry-picked many references to substantiate such claims. International agencies such as the WHO and national agencies have not accepted such preposterous claims.

A newspaper reported that in a building in Mumbai four cases of cancer were linked to radiation from a mobile phone tower. Based on this, Prof. Kumar estimated the power level at the building to be about 0.1 W/ m and claimed that the tower was the cause of cancer in “several” people in 2-3 years’ time!

He also measured a power level of 7,068 microwatt/m in the home of a cancer patient who allegedly developed cancer within an year of installation of a mobile phone tower, and links the cancer to radiation from the tower!

Arriving at a conclusion based on studying one or two individuals is not how epidemiological studies are conducted.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

Keywords: mobile tower radiation

Fukushima accident: Research Foundation comes alive

PTI FEATURE

VOL No XXVIII (32)-  2012                     August 11, 2012

                                                            ATOMIC ENERGY

                                                                         PF-   128/2012

Fukushima accident: Research Foundation comes alive

- By Dr K S Parthasarathy

Looking back to a bit of history is in order. On  6th August 1945, exactly 67 years ago, an atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima

  On March 11, 2011, a  rarest of the rare,  powerful earthquake and a devastating tsunami, led to a serious accident  at the Fukushima Atomic Power Station (Fukushima Daiichi). Many  national and international agencies  reviewed the accident. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation at Hiroshima  came alive with  several unique  programmes

  Looking back to a bit of history is in order. On  6th August 1945, exactly 67 years ago, an atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima. Nagasaki faced devastation three days later.  About 90,000- 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000- 80,000 people in Nagasaki died immediately or within two to four months after bombing, resulting from collapse of houses caused by the blast and from heat rays and fires and radiation exposure. There was wide spread radiation exposure to the surviving population. Gruesome consequences of high radiation exposures were clearly visible.

  On November 18, 1946 the US President, Harry Truman authorized the National Research Council to establish an agency "to undertake a long range, continuing study of the biological and medical effects of the atomic bomb on man". This organization grew into the Atomic Bomb       

Casualty Commission (ABCC). ABCC  which rose from nuclear ashes, continued its research and development programmes  till 1975 when Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) was set up as a US-Japan  bi-national endeavour.

  The RERF  carried out "laboratory-based research studies in the fields of radiobiology, immunology, genetics, and molecular epidemiology are carried out to help interpret the various findings and contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms of disease induction".

  The Foundation established   many fixed cohorts or sub-cohorts to provide epidemiological and clinical data on the health status and mortality of the survivors and their children. RERF  researchers developed expertise in radiation dosimetry, radiation biology and epidemiology among others. The agency is a truly a research and development organization of professionals with no commitment to promote nuclear industry or radiation technology.

  RERF has thus been in the forefront  of various radiation studies for over six decades. More than any other agency, RERF is equipped to offer guidance on radiation  related matters including radiation exposures to populations

  Since March 11, 2011, RERF staff had a very busy period. RERF was flooded  with  general public inquiries and media requests for information. During the first three days  (including Saturday and Sunday)  after the initial disaster, RERF received more than 50  telephone inquiries regarding a wide variety of issues, not just about fields of research  pursued by RERF. Based on such inquiries, RERF staff prepared a list of the most frequently asked questions on March 14  and distributed it to all staff

  The most important contribution of RERF staff  during the Fukushima crisis was the creation of a special webpage . On March 15, 2011, on its website’s “What’s New” page, RERF notified the general  public of availability of brochures dealing radiation health effects. On March 17, a special  webpage provided  questions and answers regarding radiation health effects, some relevant  brochures, a listing of institutes related to health care for the radiation-exposed in Japan, and  other related information from both Japan and abroad. An English version of the webpage was  made available on March 18, and thereafter, the webpage has been updated when necessary.

  RERF  described in one page matters elucidated thus far  by its studies. RERF's  epidemiological research of A-bomb survivors has revealed long-term health  effects from radiation. According to RERF, a radiation exposure of 1 sievert (1,000 millisieverts -mSv-, or 1,000,000  microsieverts) at age 30 increases risk of dying from solid cancer (cancer as generally understood,  excluding leukemia) at age 70 on an average of about  1.5 times for both sexes.

  The risk increases in  direct proportion to radiation  dose above around 100 to 200 mSv.  RERF clarified that the   association remains unclear below that level. (Sievert is a unit of biologically significant radiation dose; since it  a large quantity , millisievert (one thousandth) or microsievert (one millionth) is commonly used. The skin dose in a chest x-ray examination may be as high as one millisievert)

  "If we  assume that cancer risk is proportional to  radiation dose without “threshold” (the demarcation point above which  there are effects and below which there are no effects), it is projected that exposure to 100 mSv and 10 mSv increases cancer risk by about 1.05 and 1.005 times, respectively." RERF noted

  Lifetime risk of radiation-associated cancer mortality can also be estimated on the basis of such data. Exposure to about 100 mSv at age 30 is thought to increase lifetime risk of cancer mortality, which is 20% without radiation exposure, to about 21 % (increase of 1 percentage point) on average for both sexes.

  RERF described  the difference between A-bomb exposure and exposure  to environmental contamination: A-bomb exposure was a single, acute exposure, while environmental contamination causes chronic exposure; scientists believe that  the effects of  chronic exposure is smaller than those from acute exposure.  Based on this  theory, chronic exposure to a total dose of about 100 mSv would increase lifetime risk by 0.5 to 0.7  percentage point.

  Another finding of RERF is that among people exposed to high dose radiation (at least 1 sievert), increased frequency of non-cancer diseases (cataract, benign thyroid tumor, heart disease, etc.) has been observed.

  RERF  studies have not found thus far any inherited genetic effects from parental radiation exposure among the  children of A-bomb survivors. This is contrary to public perception.

  The web page contained  a brochure titled "Basic Guide to Radiation and Health Sciences". It describes the historical developments followed by basic principles of radiation protection, use of radiation in medicine, biological effects of radiation and brief details of epidemiological research.

  RERF "conducts medical research and studies for peaceful purposes, with a view to protecting the world's people from radiation effects. RERF hopes that its efforts can prove useful in the attainment of health and wellbeing for not only for those exposed to the A-bombs but for all people throughout the world."                                                            -- PTI Feature

Dr K S Parthasarathy is former Sectretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

                                                                  -------------

  

.

Scientists question a basic conclusion of A-bomb survivors study

S & T » SCIENCE August 9, 2012

This August 9, 1945 photo shows the devastation left after an atomic bomb exploded over Nagasaki, Japan. Further study is needed before dose limits for radiation protection are enforced by regulators.

The latest Life Span Study (LSS-Report 14) of A-bomb survivors by Dr Kotaro Ozasa, Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), and others, published inRadiation Research Journal this year, noted that the risk of all causes of death among the survivors increased with radiation dose over the entire range of doses with no threshold observed. The RERF study supported the Linear No Threshold (LNT) concept which is basic to radiation protection.

This means that harmful effects of radiation increase with radiation dose and even small radiation doses can cause some finite harm. Some scientists challenge the validity of LNT concept.

Writing in Radiation Research (on-line July 20, 2012) Mohan Doss, Brian L. Egleston and Samuel Litwin, Fox Chase Cancer Centre, Philadelphia argued that the functional forms the RERF authors chose for dose dependence, were not flexible enough and might have led them to the conclusion of a zero-dose threshold.

They showed that there is too much variability in the data used by the RERF authors to suggest that the threshold for the harmful effect of radiation is zero.

RERF researchers observed that the radiation risk estimates for intermediate doses were lower than those for the linear model. Professor Doss argued that this observation is consistent with radiation hormesis or ‘beneficial’ effect of radiation (Dose-Response, 2012).

He noted that RERF’s formalism ignored the potential for a large systematic bias in the measured baseline cancer mortality rate. He showed that if we correct the bias, the excess relative risk for intermediate doses can lower to negative values.

Whether low dose of radiation will cause harm or not remains controversial. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The French Academy of Sciences do not agree on the matter.

THE ANSWERS

The biological mechanisms of repair at dose levels of a few mSv proposed by scientists appear to be at best a guess work. So how can we rely on the theory that cellular repair will be absolutely error free?

“A presumption in such a concern is that but for the low dose radiation we would be fine, and would not have any cellular damage.  This presumption is far from the truth, as the natural cellular processes do lead to a certain amount of cellular damage all the time,” wrote Prof Doss in his email. 

“The increased defences triggered by the low dose radiation not only repairs the damage from the low dose radiation, but also prevents damage that would have occurred naturally in the subsequent period, while the defences are elevated.  

Thus, the total damage that occurs (from low dose radiation and from endogenous causes) is much less than what would have occurred from endogenous causes alone.”

But if a few mis-repaired or un-repaired cells survive, can they not develop into a clone of malignant cells? Is there any conclusive evidence that it will not happen?

“Low dose radiation boosts the defences and would get rid of many more of the naturally transformed cells compared to no radiation.  Thus, the net result is reduced mutations from low dose radiation,” he noted.

The most importantly, the radiation dose below which one need not have any concern about (harmful) radiation effects is not clear.

For instance, the report of the French Academy of Sciences stated that “on the basis of our present knowledge, it is not possible to define the threshold level (between 5 and 50 mSv) or to provide the evidence for it.”

“Based on the atomic bomb survivor data, I would not be concerned below ~300mGy instantaneous dose. 

The threshold for increased cancer is probably at about 600 mGy) or higher for instantaneous dose, so that leaves plenty of margin.

(mGy and mSv are the same for x rays, gamma rays and electrons),” he stressed. “If the dose is given gradually over a period of time, the threshold would be much higher.”

But followers of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) may shudder at this response as ICRP dose limit is 20mSv per year averaged over five years with no dose in any year exceeding 50 mSv.

Professor Doss conceded that the dose limits for radiation protection to be enforced by regulators will need to be set based on further study.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

Keywords: Nuclear radiation, A-bomb survivors, Life Span Study, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Radiation Research Journal, Hiroshima, Nagasaki