The daily dice with death. The perils workers face from nuclear technology — Marie-Anne Mengeot, journalist Advisory contributor, Jean-Claude Zerbib, radiation protection engineer Acknowledgements The European Trade Union Institute’s (ETUI) thanks go to the authors for the unstinting time and energy they have committed to this ambitious project for a booklet on such a supremely intricate topic. We also owe a debt of thanks to the ETUI’s former Managing Director, Marc Sapir, for his support to the process throughout all its stages. Marc enabled the authors to give a public focus to a wealth of highly complex reference material, and to access invaluable analyses by radiation protection experts. Jacqueline Rotty of the ETUI’s Documentation Centre gave invaluable assistance in the time-consuming and painstaking job of compiling the scientific literature. Original in French: L'atome au jour le jour. Les travailleurs face aux risques de la technologie nucléaire Translated into English by Glenn Robertson © European Trade Union Institute, 2013 ISBN 978-2-87452-221-5 Contents 05 Introduction 07 Chapter 1 Fascination, destruction, regulation 19 Chapter 2 Radionuclides and radiation 37 Chapter 3 Worker protection in EU law 49 Chapter 4 Controlling ionising radiation: a trail of accidents and diseases 61 Chapter 5 The most affected sectors (excluding nuclear energy) 77 Chapter 6 The risks of nuclear energy – from the mine to the power plant 91 Conclusion 93 Bibliographical references 101 Annexes 105 Table of contents 05 Introduction Ionising radiation and its medical and industrial applications were discovered just over a century ago. The finding that it is carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction has not stopped it coming into widespread use in many industry sectors, nor being used for military purposes and the manufacture of massively destructive nuclear weapons. The 20th century is littered with nuclear disasters, most notably the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. But there is also the silent disaster that affected those who worked in daily contact with ionising radiation often unaware of the risks they were running. How many died before their time? Individual monuments commemorate the odd few hundred. But many, many more have likely borne the risks and burden of dis- ease from the use of ionising radiation. The devastating consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that struck north-eastern Japan on 11 March 2011 are a salutary reminder that the risks of nuclear power are not a thing of the past. It is an event whose influence will be felt on the nascent resurgence of nuclear power as the management of existing nuclear weapon stockpiles is still beset by risks, as new threats emerge, like the acquisition of nuclear capability by states ostracised by the international community or “dirty bombs” by terrorist groups. The peaceful use of sources of radiation outside the field of nuclear energy continues to make quiet progress in many areas and is no longer the exclusive preserve of a small club of countries. Growing numbers of workers are and will be confronted with ionising ra- diation in industrial, medical and military activities, and more obviously, in nuclear power plants. As more account starts to be taken of exposure to natural radiation sources, the list of areas affected by potential exposure to radon, a radioactive gas that occurs as the decay product of natural uranium, lengthens. A 2010 report by a United Nations agency estimated that approximately 23 million workers were exposed to ionising radiation in the world. About 13 million of these work in jobs that expose them to natural sources of ionising radiation and 06 about 10 million to radiation sources from human activities. Only 7.4 million of these workers have their exposure levels regularly checked. The relative risk-benefit balance of using nuclear sources, particularly for medical or energy purposes, has so far been judged politically and socially accept- able. This has obviously not made for a proper assessment of the dangers of the peaceful use of ionising radiation. And yet the risks are very real, as is evidenced by the recommended exposure limits that have been revised steadily downwards since they were first set. Initially calculated in terms of visible short-term risks, the dose limits were subsequently adjusted in light of the results from the follow-up of thou- sands of Japanese citizens exposed to the atomic blasts of World War II. Recent epi- demiological studies focus more on the effects of “low dose” exposure. They suggest that the long-term effects of low but continuing lifelong exposure to ionising radia- tion may well have been underestimated. This is good reason for sticking rigidly to the ALARA principle which requires human exposure to ionising radiation to be as low as reasonably achievable. The health effects of low dose radiation – that affecting the vast majority of exposed workers – are still hotly disputed. They can only be addressed through a highly rigorous safety culture that not all may be willing to implement, and an ac- knowledgement that while ionising radiation has and does drive progress, it is still inherently a cause of occupational accidents and diseases. It is an insidious danger for most workers who feel no short- or medium-term effects, but whose lives may be prematurely blighted by thyroid cancer, lung cancer or leukaemia. This publication briefly reviews the use of ionising radiation. As a new EU directive on basic nuclear safety standards is under discussion, it is particularly im- portant to understand the workings of the rule-making bodies, learn the lessons of accidents in the distant and recent past, and gain a better knowledge of the exposed workers and sectors. In a global economy, it is also important to understand that the risks of ionising radiation do not stop at plant perimeters or country borders, and that there is no safe harbour from their dangers. The need to put into layman’s terms scientific concepts that have become increasingly elaborate over time, and the wide field covered by this publication, has inevitably meant simplifying otherwise complex concepts. Similarly, so that the narrative does not get bogged down to no avail by piled-up repetitive data, we have focused principally on long-standing nuclear technology countries like Belgium, France and the United Kingdom in Europe, and the United States, the former Soviet Union and Japan in the wider world. 07 Chapter 1 Fascination, destruction, regulation Ionising radiation derives its name from its ability to liberate electrons from an atom, producing ions. Some electrical equipment artificially emits ionising radia- tion - X-rays are a case in point. Ionising radiation is also part of the natural decay chain of chemical elements like uranium. These two sources of ionising radiation were discovered almost simultaneously. 1.1. From the discovery of X-rays to Hiroshima In November 1895 the German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered hitherto unknown and invisible rays that had the ability to penetrate through many materials. He called them “X-rays” using the mathematical term “X” to de- note something unknown. He was quick to see their value for medical diagno- sis from taking an “X-ray photograph” of his wife’s hand which rapidly achieved worldwide renown. Röntgen did not file a patent, which encouraged the uptake of his discovery. The process, which enabled the human body to be penetrated to reveal the skeleton, received immediate acclaim from doctors and physicists. But the indis- criminate use of X-rays soon produced side-effects, in particular the skin reaction known as radiation dermatitis. It was a bitter lesson learned by many physicists, like Thomas Edison’s assistant, Clarence Dally, who despite the amputation of his arm, died in 1904. An American doctor, Emil Herman Grubbe, working in Chicago was among the first to think of turning this toxic effect into a therapeutic treatment. He administered X-ray treatment to a woman with carcinoma of the breast, pro- tecting the healthy tissue with a lead shield. Radiotherapy and radiation protection 08 were born together but were not destined to develop apace as the appetite for the former would often result in neglect of the latter. Some months after Röntgen’s discovery, French physicist Henri Becquerel observed that rays emitted by uranium salts had similar penetrating power to X-rays. Shortly after, another French scientist, Marie Curie, brought evidence that the rays emitted by uranium salts were ionising and demonstrated that thorium compounds had the same properties. It was Marie Curie who would give the name “radioactivity” to the emission by different chemical elements of radiations similar to those of uranium. In 1898, Marie Curie and her husband Pierre discovered polonium, then radium. They soon observed that exposure to radium caused skin burns similar to those observed with X-ray machines. Radium nevertheless gained rapidly in popularity, being seen as a cure-all for health problems as varied as cancer, stomach ulcers and impotence. Marie Curie died of radium-induced leukaemia in 1934. The Radium Girls from syphilis. Five of the women, soon to be dubbed the Radium Girls, held firm and sued. In 1928, a year In 1915, physicist Sabin von Sochocky developed a after the firm shut down, they were awarded compensa- phosphorescent paint whose ingredients were zinc sul- tion of US$10 000 apiece (about $100 000 at today’s phide plus a tiny amount of radium. He founded a New rates). It was a landmark case, setting the precedent for Jersey-based company - the Radium Luminous Materials American workers’ right to bring a personal claim for Corporation – to manufacture watches and clocks with damages against their employer for a work-related in- luminescent dials.