When the United Nations commemorates the International Day Against Nuclear Tests later this week, the lingering question in the minds of most anti-nuclear activists is whether or not the existing moratorium on testing will continue to be honoured – or occasionally violated with impunity.

John Loretz, programme director at International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, told IPS that since the 1990s the moratorium has been honoured by most states with nuclear weapons.

The exceptions, he pointed out, have been India and Pakistan, both of which tested nuclear weapons in 1998, but have not done so since then, and North Korea, which has conducted three very small tests since 2006.

When Pyongyang conducted its third test last February, the 15-member U.N. Security Council condemned the test as “a grave violation” of its previous resolutions and described North Korea as a country which is “a clear threat to international peace and security.”

And when the council adopted its third resolution, immediately following the third test, it expressed a determination to take “significant action” in the event of a “further” nuclear test by North Korea.

The annual International Day Against Nuclear Tests – observed on Aug. 29 but being commemorated at the U.N., with a seminar and an exhibition, on Sep. 5 – is an important way to raise awareness about nuclear weapons, said Loretz, and specifically “the continuing threat they pose to our health and survival and the imperative that we rid the world of them”.

Asked if the growing new rift between the United States and Russia will have a negative impact, Loretz admitted, “The rift is problematic, but I have no reason to think either country would resume nuclear testing as a result of a presumably temporary souring of the relationship.”

He said both countries are modernising their arsenals, however, and current problems could increase political pressure to do so further.

Currently, there are five declared nuclear weapon states – the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China, which are the five permanent members (P-5) of the Security Council – along with three undeclared nuclear weapon states – India, Pakistan and Israel.

But it has still not been determined whether North Korea should be designated a nuclear power.At least 430,000 people died of cancer by the year 2000 because of radioactive fallout.

Dale Dewar, former executive director of Physicians for Global Survival, told IPS the world has somewhat successfully eliminated atmospheric and deep underground testing of nuclear weapons, although North Korea did the latter just a year ago.

The United States has embarked upon a plan for “subcritical nuclear testing” where no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur, she said. The behaviour of plutonium, an important component of nuclear weapons, can be observed during these tests.

The costs of the tests and testing facility are exorbitant. A single test costs around 20 million dollars, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and preparation for the test costs upwards of 100 million dollars.

Dewar said Physicians for Global Survival sees these costs as monies removed from health care, education and social services – taxpayer money that has been diverted for military and in this case theoretical science fictional future use.

“Were the bombs for which these tests are conducted ever used, the lives and health of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, would be affected. There is no justification for continuing to possess such weapons, much less test them,” she asserted.

Tilman A. Ruff, associate professor at the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, told IPS an estimated 2,061 nuclear test explosions, conducted by eight or nine nations since 1945, have been used to develop nuclear weapons, fuelling the greatest immediate threat to global survival and health.

Test explosions themselves also exact a substantial and persisting environmental and human toll, he said.

“Every person and living thing contains strontium-90 in their teeth and bones, cesium-137 inside their cells, carbon-14, plutonium-239 and other radioactive materials dispersed worldwide,” said Ruff, who is also co-chair of the International Steering Group and Australian Board member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

He said a study by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) found that at least 430,000 people died of cancer by the year 2000 because of this radioactive fallout, and over time, more than 2.4 million people will die of cancer caused by nuclear test explosions.

“In almost every case, nuclear test sites have been forced upon indigenous, minority and colonised peoples, and downwind communities and test site workers have suffered most,” he noted.

At every nuclear test site, he pointed out, a long-term radioactive and toxic legacy remains along with yet unmet needs for clean-up and remediation, long-term environmental monitoring, and care and compensation for those affected.

These responsibilities rest with the governments that undertook the tests.

While underground nuclear tests disperse much less radioactive fallout into the atmosphere than above-ground tests, they shatter the surrounding rock and pose a long-term hazard for future generations of radioactive leakage into the environment and groundwater, Ruff declared.

Loretz told IPS the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted in 1996 but has not yet been ratified by enough states to enter into force.

The United States has signed but not ratified it, and a commonly shared opinion is that U.S. ratification, which is a necessity, would tip the balance and lead to the other ratifications required for entry into force, he said. “That’s one big thing that remains to be done.”

“Many of us have come to believe that CTBT ratification, while important and useful, is now secondary to the comprehensive treaty for which the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is campaigning.”

A global ban as the opening act to eliminating actual nuclear weapons would include a prohibition against testing, he added.

A state-of-the-art nuclear medicine hospital for cancer treatment in the heart of Bangalore goes well with the global image of this tech-savvy city.

Staff at HCG hospital in Bangalore don safety gear before entering the Cyclotron. Credit: Malini Shankar/IPS

The HealthCare Global (HCG) hospital is equipped with facilities to manufacture and trade in nuclear medicine and offers the advantage of easy access for cancer patients.

However, locating such a facility in downtown Bangalore has its risks, particularly as a potential source of radioactivity that could affect residents in the surrounding, densely populated slum, or diners at two nearby restaurants.

Although advances in nuclear medicine and diagnostics – such as mammography, X-rays, cobalt radiation, gamma rays exposure, CT scans, thyroid treatment and radio isotopes – herald an era of advanced medical care, experts say that India’s nuclear medicine industry needs tighter regulation, sharper scrutiny and better planning.

Given that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself plainly states that standards for nuclear medicine differ from state to state, it is not at all an easy task to regulate or standardise radiation or leakage in terms of millisieverts per year.

The problem is made worse by the fact that India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), tasked with monitoring nuclear applications throughout the country, is funded by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) – the very department the AERB is expected to regulate.

Although headed by the Indian Prime Minister, the DAE does not answer to the Indian Parliament.

This compromise in independent regulation has many implications, but Indian scientists and medical professionals are particularly concerned about its impact on the nuclear medical sector.

India’s vast, unplanned cities call for extra caution, since nuclear medicine diagnostic centres are often located in densely populated urban jungles. Often, diagnostic laboratories are located close to residential areas, schools, slums or restaurants.

“Advanced diagnostic laboratories and multi-speciality hospitals that use nuclear applications like radioisotopes in nuclear medicine, X-rays, mammography, etcetera, are all sources of radioactivity,” says Dr. Udaya Kumar Maiya, oncologist at the Bangalore Hospital.

“Adequate safety and security protocols with rigid usage norms are essential for prevention of harm to the general public, patients and the environment,” he told IPS. If the sector is “callously managed” the results could be “catastrophic”, he cautioned: a single radioisotope has the capacity to harm millions of people through contamination or radiation exposure.

As Dr. Guru Shankar, medical superintendent at the Victoria Hospital, the premier government medical college hospital in Bangalore, pointed out, “Even if one technician forgets to give protection to the reproductive organs of patients who are subjected to multiple exposures (for treatment) it can lead to destruction of reproductive organs like ovaries or testes.”

Though Shankar — who also serves on the district disaster management committee of the National Disaster Response Force — has not come across anyone who has crossed the “threshold of high radioactivity in the 34 years that I have served in government hospitals”, he is aware and concerned about possible dangers.

Nuclear medicine and radioactive sources have potentially hazardous effects if they inadvertently escape into the surrounding area, particularly in urban settings. Over-exposure to mammography – particularly for technicians – can also lead to a higher susceptibility to cancer.

“The (spurt) of unplanned growth in urban areas like Bangalore is a recipe for disaster. This is where the role of the AERB is crucial,” Maiya added.

The ability to isolate facilities that manufacture or utilise nuclear medicine is challenged by the rapid growth of India’s metropolises. Urban planners have failed to make provisions for arterial roads for emergency disposal of nuclear medicine or evacuation and assembly points in case of accidents. City planners have also neglected to designate disposal centres for nuclear medicine waste.

However, director of the Pet CT Cyclotron at the HCG hospital in Bangalore, Dr. Kumar Kallur, assured IPS in an exclusive interview that nuclear medicines are perfectly safe and well regulated.

“The radiation is contained within the cyclotron vault and it never escapes. Moreover isotopes produced have a very short life span – anywhere between two minutes to two hours, necessitating easy access in a place like (downtown) Bangalore.

“Cyclotrons (used in the manufacture of nuclear medicines for cancer treatments) cannot be installed without AERB approval, which monitors every single aspect of the cyclotron operations during peak performance.”

He added that cyclotron licences are only issued upon strict inspections of location, disposal mechanisms, manufacturing facilities  and trained staff, and that the hospital itself is expected to produce quarterly safety analysis reports for submission to the Board. “The AERB makes surprise inspections. At the slightest hint of radiation leakage the operations will completely stop,” Kallur stressed.

“Patients who have undergone nuclear medicine therapy are admitted to AERB-approved isolation wards. Even the human waste generated by such patients is subjected to delay and decay in tanks that are tested periodically before the sewage is discharged into the public sewage system,” Kallur assured IPS.

But others are not convinced and some experts have gone so far as to label the regulatory process a “farce”.

In his recently published book “The Power of Promise” physicist M.V. Ramana charged, “The AERB’s effectiveness is constrained by the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) choice of institutional structure. Rather than make the AERB independent of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the AEC made the AERB report to itself.”

He also lamented the fact that the secretary of the DAE is the ex officio chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, which effectively allows the DAE to exercise administrative power over the AERB.

“Until recently, the chairman of the Nuclear Power Corporation was also a member of the AEC,” he wrote.

“The AERB’s budget comes from the DAE. All these factors place structural limits on the AERB’s effectiveness,” Ramana told IPS.

He went on to add, “The AERB does not carry out any monitoring of essential performance metrics such as radiological exposure of workers at DAE facilities or measurement of levels of radio nuclides in the vicinity of nuclear facilities.” Instead, these tasks are “entrusted to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Bombay”.

Scientists here feel the government should undertake disaster prevention measures such as establishing evacuation points, frequent broadcasts of “Dos and Don’ts”, better training for investigative officers, designated arterial routes for mass evacuation and easy access to first aid in the event of an accident, or disaster.

(END)