A Place to Stand

  Newspaper letter sent out a few days ago. That the entirely false Dalgety Bay radiation scare is promoted by SEPA and the BBC, is scandalous. The rest of the media are not willing to allow serious reporting of the facts either:

   Gordon Brown recently promoted the Dalgety Bay radiation fraud once again in Parliament. Here at 9.52  Andrew Murrison, speaking for the MoD put up a fairly stout defence.

BROWN  "the Ministry of Defence will have to make a decision, as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be bound to designate this area as the only radiation-contaminated area in the United Kingdom if action is not taken by the MOD as soon as possible. It is an amazing fact that we have nuclear waste sites, we have nuclear submarines and we have weapons in different parts of the United Kingdom, but this small beach in the heart of my constituency, which is on a walkway, the coastal path of Fife, is liable to be named the first ever radiation-contaminated area in the UK."
 
" it is only in the past few days that I have discovered the scale of the problem in the greatest detail, thanks to the risk assessment report and to the appropriate person report, of which the Minister will no doubt be aware. That makes it clear that the contamination of the beach area in Dalgety Bay arises from the fact that starting in 1946 and for 13 years, wartime fighter planes and other planes in the possession of the Royal Air Force were scrapped and incinerated before the ash, including radiated parts, was dumped in the area of Dalgety Bay. In 1946 alone, 800 planes were scrapped and their parts dumped in this area of my constituency. From 1946 to 1959, not a few planes—not tens, or twenties, or scores—but hundreds were broken up before their parts were incinerated and the ash, including radiated parts, was dumped in the area."

"because of coastal erosion the particles are being brought up to the surface"
note that coastal erosion is a geological process which would reveal particles laid down 10s of millions not merely tens of years ago.

He denounces an MOD paper suggesting an alleged radioactive object mentioned in 1990 was more than a ‘theoretical’ object—it is not clear whether an object with the properties required has been found or whether there is simply the possibility that such an object might exist.”
However, these objects were admitted in 1990"  - so clearly this object, theoretical or not, cannot be produced by SEPA, or perhaps they choose not to produce it because it could be seen to be a fraud - that makes "theoretical object" look like a fairly kindly term for the MoD to use of something that, at best, doesn't exist.

"Contamination has been proven. Risks do remain" repeating a lie, well 2 lies, doesn't make them true

Murrison
"expended £825,000 to date undertaking a site investigation, as well as a monitoring and recovery programme along the foreshore. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the work we have undertaken in a number of gardens belonging to his constituents where radium was discovered, at a cost of some £500,000."  Asssuming SEPA, the protagonist here, has spent about 5 times as much we can estimate the total bill to the taxpayer, for doing absolutely nothing worth doing is about £5 million

   He then goes on to say that there is no factual basis to the claim of 800 aircraft being scrapped there. In this regard I note that I asked that precise question last year and SEPA could not or did not answer. If, as they claim, they knew in 1990 that there were 800 planes there then, by definition, they knew it last year and thus were deliberately lying when they claimed not to know it. However 800 planes disassembled in 1946 alone is an awful lot - 4 per working day - and such disassembly production line would hardly have gone unnoticed. While not wishing to suggest the claim represents anything other than the pinnacle of honesty to which SEPA and Brown ever aspire I think it obvious it is a total lie.

   He then reverses Brown's scare about this potentially being the only "radiation contaminated area" in the country when there are so many places where real radiation work is being done.

   He also mentions radiation there being "less than 2/3rds that in an Aberdeen street" though unfortunately omits the words "less than"

  All in all the MoD may actually be standing more steady under fire. Of course battles were not won by only that tactic. You have to shoot back. For example the MoD could release their own Geiger counter readings of adjoining beaches, something SEPA, in a manner incompatible with ANY respect for scientific principles, have always refused to do - and for good measure do a reading of the car park in SEPA's Aberdeenshire office, which would certainly be much higher.

   From Next Big Future


The TPC (Thorium Power Canada) Thorium Reactor is a one-of-a-kind technology whose modular design can achieve any output desired at significantly reduced capital and carrying costs. The cost to build a reactor is estimated at $2.0 million per MW and can be built in 18-24 months versus conventional reactors at 5-7 years. Through a partnership with DBI, the company’s thorium reactor design provides a nuclear alternative to fossil fuel consumption, taking advantage of abundant and widely available thorium deposits. The TPC Thorium Reactor has been in research and development since 1970.


There is 2010 patent Thorium-based nuclear reactor and method US 20100067644 A1 by Hector A. D'Auvergne who is the main person behind this reactor design.

Nextbigfuture has summarized the patent.


Chilean 10 MW Thorium Desalination Plant









They are planning a 10 MW thorium reactor located in Copiapó, Chile consists of a core and reactor manufactured by DBI Operating Company in California. The balance of plant, including all buildings and required infrastructure will be constructed on site.....

Indonesian 25 MW Thorium Power Project



Thorium Power Canada is presently preparing a proposal for the development of a 25 MW thorium reactor in Indonesia. This demonstration power project will provide electrical power to the country’s power grid.

Indonesia could install a reactor on the island of Kalimantan in as soon as two years, Kerr said. The reactor would either connect to the grid in the rapidly expanding country, or power a water desalination plant.

     The $2 million per MW quoted is marginally higher than the $1.2-1.8 bn for the Westinghouse AP1000 1GW but that is probably a diseconomy of scale - "design can achieve any output desired" certainly suggests much of the cost would be flat for larger outputs.

      Thorium is considered to be inherently safer because being non-explosive, unlike uranium, passive safety systems are feasible. There is also 4 times as much thorium in the world as uranium.

      But the real killer is the timescale. 18 months to 2 years (previously the minimum has been 3 years in China or 10 in Europe) makes it nearly as fast as building new gas generators. Even with all the decades wasted we could still, possibly, prevent blackouts. I did previously discuss reactors with an 18 month build time but this time we actually have something already being contracted for.

     And I have previously suggested building (or allowing the building of) a factory for mass producing modular reactors in Scotland.
 

   I think it worth putting up the 2 questions that I sent to "Brian's Big Debate". Since there were only about 20 people in the audience and it is unlikely that even half of them put in questions beforehand the fact that neither were chosen suggests something not unexpected about BBC direction of "debate".

   Both questions were based on current news stories - SEPA's decision on how to enforce a "clean up" of Dalgety Bay is due shortly and the Met Office have had a well publicised meeting of "climate scientists" to come up withy explanations of the globe not warming:

 Dalgety Bay:

  
The silence of academics on this matter is interesting. Though it is not total.

  Steuart Campbell (possibly Scotland's most respected science writer) contributed section 4 here. Freeman Dyson, one of the world's most eminent physicists has previously told me that he does not believe that such very low level radiation is harmful at all. In fact he says of the directly opposite theory, known as hormesis, that this radiation, if it were present at Dalgety, would actually be beneficial to health "which I find quite likely" http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/freeman-dyson-guest-post.html. Professor Fred Singer, who had a prominent scientific career long before becoming dean of the warming sceptics and Jerry Pournelle, the space scientist who chaired the committee who persuaded Reagan to support SDI have been equally dismissive of the basis on which this entire scare story is based.

   In the last few days I have received replies to FoI's from SEPA and & the Food Standards Agency. The former have confirmed that, with their massive resources in the field, they have been unable to find any scientific evidence whatsoever that such radiation is harmful. The latter, while relying on SEPA having proven the presence of radium there, something which SEPA have claimed but repeatedly been unable to prove, finally accepted that there is no actual evidence of danger and that they are relying entirely on the "precautionary approach" which, if they actually believed in it would require them not only to ban all food imports that could have come from higher radiation areas around the world but also "would require you to ban selling haggis on the grounds that it might attract flying saucers - a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, but then that is the point of this principle" http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dalgety-bay-food-standard-agencys-reply.html

    Having seen the understandable unwillingness of individual scientists to "put their heads above the parapet" over global warming and the way that those professional bodies that get government funding line up behind government policy I am sanguine about any of them being wiling to take a stand here.

   However I have decided to send a copy of this article to members of the radiological departments of Scotland's Universities to see if they would care to comment to ThinkScotland or myself.

====================
Dear Sir,


My undernoted article on the alleged radiation "threat" at Dalgety Bay http://www.thinkscotland.org/change-scotland/articles.html?read_full=11466&article=www.thinkscotland.org has recently been published by the online news website ThinkScotland. It raises a whole range of questions about this scare story including, is the possible maximum theoretical amount of radium there no more than 1 part in 35 billion of the naturally occurring radioactives there? Is this an amount on which such scare stories can credibly be based? Is there any actual scientific evidence whatsoever for the scare story that low level radiation is harmful? SEPA themselves have confirmed they know of none and have to rely on evidence free assumptions by other functionaries.
A statement either way would be appreciated. I realise that saying that the scare story produced by a government department is without scientific foundation might be ticklish and if, for that reason, you feel unable to reply I will understand. In that case I hope you will be prepared to forward this to an emeritus member of staff, who could safely reply.

  On May 17th I sent this FoI to the Food Standards Agency in Scotland in their ban of fishingm & received this today, so at least they deserve some credit for not waiting till the last legal moment, or beyond. My questions are in normal, their answers in bold and my comments in bold italics.



1 - What evidence, from the FSA's knowledge, do you have of "radium" being found on the beach? If none write "none".

     Radium contamination was first detected in 1990 as part of the routine environmental monitoring report. Subsequent surveys bring the total number of radioactive particles and items recovered to date to over 2,000. ... results are available on SEPA's website.
 
     This is false. Radium has not provably been detected. All that has been detected is radiation, some clumped in what are described as "particles". SEPA have repeatedly refused to produce any actual evidence of radium in response to FoIs asking that precise question, indeed this refusal to do so or admit the lack is now subject to an appeal..
2 - What background readings of radiation has the FSA made at this beach and at others nearby, as a control, and have you found the radiation level higher at Dalgety Bay? Of none and no write "none and no".

None. The FSA does not directly undertake monitoring...

    SEPA does not undertake such monitoring either. So it is accepted that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Dalgety Bay radiation exceeds that of neighbouring beaches in intensity or particularity/clumpiness.

3 - Does the FSA accept SEPA's evidence that the radiation at Dalgety Bay is "less than 2/3rds background in Aberdeen" and that this also makes it as low as 1% of the radiation level in various places around the world from which the FSA does not ban imports? If yes answer "Yes".

    The issue of concern does not apply to the levels of background radiation but to the possibility that highly radioactive particles could enter the food chain. Although the answer to the question is Yes

    Since he has admitted is no evidence that the "particles" are more common than on neighbouring beaches let alone as common as across Aberdeen. On the question of whether being in particles is more "dangerous" than normal background radiation see answer to #5.
4 - Does the FSA dispute evidence that the maximum theoretical level of radium from these dials, had all of it been deposited on the beach and none of it washed or blown away over the last 60 years, would not exceed 25% of naturally occurring radium there or 1/35,000,000,000th of the total naturally occurring background radioactives there? If you do not dispute it answer "no".

Yes. A "theoretical level" is simply a theory not evidence. It is evident from the heterogeneity, of the items discovered, the uneven distribution of deposits and historical accounts that the contamination derives not just from luminised dials, but as a result of debris from repair, reluminising work, and disposal of luminised items carried out on-site.


    The maximum amount is based on the historical accounts and unlike by the FSA, has not been disputed by SEPA in any way, even under the legal pressure of FoIs. He is misusing the English language here using "theoretical" as if it meant "drawn from theory" when in fact it clearly means "an absolute maximum, from the known facts above which the radium level could not go, though in non-theoretical conditions it is likely much of it will have been lost over the last 60 years". The distribution cannot be said to be uneven since, as acknowledged, there has not been a search elsewhere. I am not sure in what way the particles/clumps discovered can be said to be particularly heterogeneous. While one would expect any painting to be purely of the aircraft dials in question claims that the radiation comes from other "luminised items" rather than just dials have not been made in previous FOIs. It would seem to require some evidence that Dalgety Bay airfield was also a radium watch factory or laboratory for refining pitchblende to obtain natural radium. This is an extraordinary new claim for which no evidence has been produced and goes against all common sense.

5 - If the answers are as I suggest then it is obviously impossible to honestly claim there is a real radiation threat to food there, let alone one which, if the rules are applied honestly, would not  Is there another credible option? If no answer "no". If there is please give it.

Yes, the contamination has arisen from local historical activities and is confined to the Dalgety Bay area. Additionally the contaminate is particulate and some particles are small enough to be ingested by seafood such as winkles and mussels. If these were subsequently consumed they could cause direct damage to the human gut and an increased risk of cancer. Laboratory studies have shown that some particles would be soluble in the human gut which would increase the potential dose.
  Again this is untrue. No evidence has been produced of "contamination" as opposed to natural radiation, indeed it is accepted that Dalgety is less "contaminated" by radiation than other places. There is no evidence of the claimed "historical activities" that, alone, could have increased any theoretical radioactives by more
 than a 35 billionth. Nor has any evidence been produced that it is "confined to the Dalgety Bay area" since neither SEPA nor the FSA have looked.

  That being the case and they have not been" closing down all fishing from Aberdeenshire and points north let alone prohibiting any food imports from much of the world" then it is proven that "only possible reason for doing this is to deliberately promote a fraudulent scare story" by a wholly corrupt and parasitic organisation..

  "Laboratory studies have shown that some particles would be soluble in the human gut which would increase the potential dose" is a particularly interesting remark for 2 reasons. Firstly, since the paint was water soluble virtually all, not merely "some" of the "particles" should be water soluble - if they aren't natural particles. Even more importantly it is an acknowledgement that they know all the stuff said in answer to #3 about this radiation being dangerous in a way background radiation isn't is because it is "particles". This is the "hot particle theory and is accepted by wikipedia and apparently even by the FSA when it suits them, as false.

  Calling things "particles" is clearly disingenuous if you don't mention size. Everything is a particle but, by the laws of geometry, the larger a particle proportionately the less surface area it has, to contact  anything outside so for equal amounts of radioactives and background radiation, it would be better for it to be in particles and anybody using particularlity rather than background radiation as the measure of danger is lying. The FSA has done so but has also achieved the remarkable feat of claiming the precise opposite as well in the same letter.
6 - If the answer to 5 is no is there any specific ruling applying to Dalgety Bay but not the rest of the country that prevents this action from representing the very highest standard of honesty the FSA Scotland aspire to or that would make any ruling on any food matter by you infinitely more trustworthy than this. If none and no answer "none and no".

  The FSA has a statutory responsibility to protect consumers through ensuring food safety and has taken a precautionary approach, based on the best available evidence, in order to discharge the responsibility.

   That appears to be "none" and "no" then. Note the use of the term "precautionary approach".  This is basically a way of saying "we don't need no stinkin evidence" & relegates the entire organisation into the realm of unscientific quackery. Of course if they were honest non-scientific quacks, who actually believed a word of their own scare story they would also be banning imports of food from the "various places around the world from which the FSA does not ban imports" but are up to 100 times more radioactive.

 
My Reply
Dear Dr Will Munro,
                                Thank you for the FSA's reply. I am including my blog comments for you to comment on should you feel you can enhance the FSA's credibility in any way by doing so.
 
      Your answers bring up obvious further questions which I would be obliged for a reply to under the Act..
 
1 - What evidence do you have for your claim that some of the 0.25g which might have been spread over the area 60 years ago, has been detected by chemical or other means? If you have none your first answer is untrue and must be corrected.
 
3 - What is your evidence that the hot particle theory, on which your claim that only the particularity of the materials, not the overall level is important depends, is correct?
 
4 - What is your evidence for the claimed, but previously unknown, other radium contamination not linked to dial paint?  What is your evidence that the distribution of "particles" is different from that at Dalgety in neighbouring beaches which both SEPA and yourselves admit you have not similarly examined? In both cases, if none answer none and provide a new answer.
 
5 - See 4 above. If  no control sample has been attempted on neighbouring beaches how can it be possible to say that the radiation is only at Dalgety? The alternative being that it is natural and occurs elsewhere.
 
Also what is your evidence that the opposite ofv the hot particle theory is true and that radiation reduced to undetectable particles in solution, comparable to background radiation, is the more dangerous?
 
6 -The evidence free, anti-scientific "precautionary approach" would require the banning of any imported food that might come from an area of up to 100 times more radiation than Dalgety, or even from Aberdeen. Indeed technically it would require you to ban selling haggis on the grounds that it might attract flying saucers - a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, but then that is the point of this principle. Will this principle be applied without prejudice?
 
I accept your agreement on #2.

  SEPA have "answered" my last FoI. As I said in that FoI posted here "I have now been asked to appeal this refusal and once again ask you to provide the specific information requested. Not merely to say it is somewhere on our website, particularly when this is not true."

  A couple of days before the reply was legally due i got a phone call saying that since they were doing their very p best to provide a full and definitive set of answers would it be OK of they were a few days beyond the legal time limit. Being the moderate and placatory person revealed on this site I said yes.

   So the reply is certainly extensive.

   In answer to the first 3 questions (whether paint particles have been found, whether radium has been found, whether claims to have done so have been retracted and whether SEPA are more honest in any of their dealings than to falsely claim to have found them), SEPA sent a detailed 10 page reply. It said absolutely nothing beyond that it is all on our website - something which, incidentally is a lie.

   The next file sent was slightly more responsive.

   In answer to (4) - what scientific breakthrough proved, after they had made their promise to designate the place as radioactive waste that so completely changed all the evidence as to make them stop - the answer was - this is on the website.Iit isn't.

   For (5) -what makes Dounraey different and what other local beach has been used as a control,  sample the answer was

The nature of the radioactive "particles" at Dounraey is different from the nature of radioactive "particles" at Dalgety Beach. Particles at Dounraey are fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel which arose from reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods. Particles at Dalgety Bay result from burning and dumping luminised instruments..."

   Reports on the particles at Dounraey is available on our website http://www.sepa.org/radioactive%20substances/publications/dounraey%20reports.aspx..

  So, while they don't actually answer the question the clear implication is that no scientific control sample has ever been taken at Dounraey to find out if it is more radioactive than background either and certainly that there is no stronger evidence for any threat at Dounraey than for the fraudulent scare story at Dalgety.

  Since so many billions are being spent by the bureaucracy on Dounraey the fact that they cannot claim to have done even the most basic scientific examination of the alleged danger of these alleged particles is very revealing.

  On (6) what actual scientific evidence do they claim to have that there is any truth in the Linear Non-Threshold assertion that such low level radiation is in any way harmful the answer is

Statutory dose limits and constraints for the radiological protection of the public are derived from international agreements derived from bodies such as the EC, IEA and the ICRP.

  That's it. No actual scientific evidence whatsoever - it is simply an assertion that has been decreed by those in charge. When I, as a private individual, say I have been unable to find any actual evidence against hormesis and for the LNT scare that is one thing. When the radiological department of a government "Environment Protection Agency" whose entire careers absolutely depend on the truth of this scare, under a legal obligation to produce it if it exists, says they know of no slightest scrap of actual evidence whatsoever that Linear Non-Threshold story us in any way truthful you can take that to the bank.

   And that part of their "answer" took a mere 5 pages.

   So now an appeal goes to the Scottish Information Commissioner that, having repeatedly refused to answer FoI's and in response to an appeal they asked me to put in, phrased in the simplest terms, asking for actual information, SEPA have gone to the greatest possible lengths to make no answer beyond "its on the website" (which is untrue) . Granted they accidentally revealed rather than deliberately told, the truth on the last 2 points.

  This is a short version of my latest article, this time summarising the position of Dalgety Bay and taking a few sideswipes at the BBC & some at the no threshold radiation scare) on Brian Monteith's ThinkScotland site. Please put any comments on there.
-------------------------


Radiation scare stories? Aberdeen's more dangerous than Dalgety Bay
THE Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) promised to blight the little town of Dalgety Bay by designating part of their beach as "radioactive waste" by the end of March.
I first ran across this scare story in Feb 2009 when the BBC morning programme gave SEPA a slot. (1)
In its influence on British public life the fact that the BBC daily promote new scare stories on the environment, health or how some part of the welfare state is about to collapse is probably the most damaging to the fabric of the nation.
They do censor and propagandise on political party lines. Otherwise the Green party couldn't get 40 times more coverage per vote (virtually all supportive) than UKIP do (unsupportively). They do lie, censor and proagandise to support hatred of whichever country we are preparing to bomb. Otherwise they could not have censored reporting of the dissection, while still alive of 1,800 people by our "police" in Kosovo (formerly the NATO armed KLA) while giving so much coverage to the "indictment" of Gadaffi for things literally not 1% as evil. But I suspect that, over the long term, the "eco" scare stories do more damage to the average citizen.
Have any of these thousands of scare stories subsequently been proven fully true? I am open to an example....

The report on Dalgety Bay was one such. The story on that programme was that certain aircraft were decommissioned there after the war; that they had dials painted with radium paint; and that this radium has contaminated the beach to a dangerous extent.
Listening to SEPA's spokesman speak it became clear that the amount of radiation they had detected was extraordinarily low and that they avoided the fact that low level radiation occurs naturally everywhere. Since it was a phone in I phoned in and suggested that this could indeed be simply the natural radiation. The SEPA spokesman replied that since they had chemically proven that these radioactive particles consisted of paint this had to be the cause and thereby won the debate.
However the claim to have proven that such microscopic particles of radiation consisted of paint seemed to me to be pushing the limits of science. Radioactives in tiny quantities can be detected by the radiation but molecular quantities of paint are a different matter. I wrote to SEPA asking for the published evidence of this.
They replied saying (A) that they had no duty to answer such questions and (B) threatening legal action if I persisted. I persisted, pointing out that, under the Freedom of Information Act they did indeed have such a duty. Across a period of over a year and repetitions of the query I was directed to many documents. Though SEPA never admitted the claim was a lie (and still don't) it became clear that no they had, in fact, never found the radioactive paint particles claimed.
Over the years the experts they hired had reached conclusions. The most spectacular being that "the highest reading recorded at Dalgety Bay was still less than 2/3rds that found in a typical Aberdeen street"....

So there is no actual threat and no evidence of dangerous radioactivity introduced by Man.
There is a vast amount of scaremongering about radiation. We all live with radiation every day. World average human radiation dosage is about 2.4 mSv per year but this varies from place to place. Aberdeen being about 50% above average. By comparison Kerala in India has a background rate of about 175 mSv without any visible harmful effect, indeed quite the opposite....
The science writer Steuart Campbell also wrote a guest blog (4) in which he pointed out that within the top foot of an average square mile of land there is 9 tonnes of naturally occurring uranium and thorium and because of the breakdown of these, 1 gram of radium. He also pointed out that these radium dials existed on all the 100s of thousands of wartime night bombers.
My findings about SEPA's claims were reported by the Dunfermline, Dundee and Aberdeen Press (5) but not by papers from Glasgow or Edinburgh, who presumably consider Dalgety too remote to be worth questioning coverage. Obviously the BBC refused to broadcast anything balancing their earlier reports despite knowing they were, at least in part, false....
According to one report SEPA paid for "the highest reading recorded at Dalgety Bay was still less than 2/3rds that found in a typical Aberdeen street." There should be a thorough, independent and public investigation into the entire expensive organisation....
I also asked them under further FoI's how many aircraft were destroyed, how much paint there was on each of them and what weight of radium that would amount to but it turned out they not only had no slightest idea but they had not even asked the MoD for such specific and very basic information.
Nonetheless, on their behalf I have an estimate, assuming not more than 20 planes were broken up and knowing what proportion of paint is pigment. Since the paint is water soluble is probable that most of it would be long gone after 60 years but the original amount of radium could not reasonably have been more than 1/4 of a gram - i.e. 1/4 of the naturally occurring radium and 1/36 billionth of all the radioactive material. (6)
SEPA have to date chosen not to dispute this estimate...
SEPA are now threatening that, within a few days, if the MoD does not come up with an expensive plan to remove the "radium" they will declare the land "radioactive contamination". There is allegedly no requirement for them to produce any evidence of this, nor any appeal against this decision....

The main broadcaster has not merely been complicit in maintaining a story they know to be, at least in part, false but have been, in recent months, the most enthusiastic promoter of SEPA's story....

The good news is that in March SEPA backed off from their promise to designate the land as radioactive waste. Not permanently - because the situation is "more complicated than initially believed". They and the MoD will put off their confrontation until then....



(1) Blog on the day about the programme http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/02/scotlands-secret-radioactive-sites.html

(2) SEPA's own Assessments http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/05/dalgety-bay-my-reply.html

(3) LNT disproven. "Impacts of low dose radiation" http://www.healthcanal.com/public-health-safety/24865-New-Take-Impacts-Low-Dose-Radiation.html

(4) Steurt Campbell's article on the science http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/05/radium-at-dalgety-bay-guest-article-on.html

(5) Dundee Courier article http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/05/dundee-courier-does-article-on-dalgety.html , P and J letter http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1234845, Dunfermline Press article http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2009/06/11/388386#comments

(6) New ban http://news.stv.tv/uk/98998-ban-on-gathering-seafood-from-beach-where-radioactive-particles-found/

I also have an article to come on SEPA's response to my last FoI

Restrictions have been placed on gathering seafood and bait from a beach affected by radioactive particles.
Warning signs are already in place at Dalgety Bay in Fife saying seafood should not be collected but new restrictions have been issued making it an offence, the Food Standards Agency in Scotland said.
The is "a precautionary measure" following recent surveys detecting radioactive items on the beach, the food watchdog said.
It added that the restrictions will be reviewed in light of further evidence or any action taken "to remediate the contamination".
Although there is no commercial fishing or shellfish industry in the area, individuals are known to collect shellfish, it said.

   If one part of the bureaucracy cannot get its way bring in another. This woll doubtless then be used as "evidence" that there must be a problem because the Food Standards Agency, Scotland also say there is. An ionfinite circle of mutual support held in mid air by itself. The phrase "
a precautionary measure" rather suggests no evidence but we will see.

  This prompts another FoI

Dear Food Standards Agency in Scotland,
                                                                 I note that you have decided to ban fishing in Dalgety Bay, purely on the basis of the alleged finding of radioactive "radium" there. This raises a number of questions of fact and of principle which I must ask you, under the FoI Act, or any other pertinent regulation, to answer.

1 - What evidence, from the FSA's knowledge, do you have of "radium" being found on the beach? If none write "none".

2 - What background readings of radiation has the FSA made at this beach and at others nearby, as a control, and have you found the radiation level higher at Dalgety Bay? Of none and no write "none and no".

3 - Does the FSA accepts SEPA's evidence that the radiation at Dalgety Bay is "less than 2/3rds background in Aberdeen" and that this also makes it as low as 1% of the radiation level in various places around the world from which the FSA does not ban imports? If yes answer "yes".

4 - Does the FSA dispute evidence that the maximum theoretical level of radium from these dials, had all of it been deposited on the beach and none of it washed or blown away over the last 60 years, would not exceed 25% of naturally occurring radium there or 1/35,000,000,000th of the total naturally occuring background radioactives there? If you do not dispute it answer "no".

5 - If the answers are as I suggest then it is obviously impossible to honestly claim there is a real radiation threat to food there, let alone one which, if the rules are applied honestly, would not involve closing down all fishing from Aberdeenshire and points north let alone prohibiting any food imports from much of the world. If that is not currently being done the only possible reason for doing this is to deliberately promote a fraudulent scare story. Is there another credible option? If no answer "no". If there is please give it.

6 - If the answer to 5 is no is there any specific ruling applying to Dalgety Bay but not the rest of the country that prevents this action from representing the very highest standard of honesty the FSA Scotland aspire to or that would make any ruling on any food matter by you infinitely more trustworthy than this. If none and no answer "none and no".

  As you will see I have gone to some pains to make it possible for you to answer this easily and clearly, rather than saying , falsely, that its all on our website, as SEPA have repeatedly donethough if any of the answers are different from those suggested please give reasons. Perhaps this will make it easier to provide an answer before the absolute legal limit of 20 working days.

   Some time ago I did 2 FoI's about Dalgety Bay - one to the civil service masters in Edinburgh & one to SEPA.

   This is the reply to the first of these. Thank you for your email to the Central Enquiry Unit dated 31 March 2012 which included the following points Numbers eg (1) added.
------------------------------------
(1)‘…[Is there] a general duty on government-funded departments and quangos not to deliberately seek to frighten people by lying?’

(2)‘…how many people in [SEPA] have been fired…?’

(3)‘…SEPA appear to have…repeatedly lied about the Dalgety Bay “radium”…something that could not happen except on the authority of the highest management…’

(3)‘…when is it intended to wind up… [SEPA]?’
Your enquiry has been passed to the Radioactive Waste Team who have responsibility for monitoring the Dalgety Bay situation on behalf of Scottish Ministers. With regard to your enquiry I have completed a review of information available to the Scottish Government on these points and can provide responses as follows. Please note that the numbering for the responses follows the numbering used above.
(1) I can confirm that no such specifically worded general duty exists. Employees belonging to the organisations relevant to this enquiry work within the Scottish Civil Service Code of Conduct and the SEPA Code of Conduct. Both of these documents are available on the organisational websites as linked.
(2) The information you seek is not held by the Scottish Government. For this reason we are refusing this part of your request under the exception at regulation 17(1)(b) of the FOISA....

(3) Ministers currently have no plans to abolish SEPA

-------------------------
  I must admit to a little surprise that there is not even a nominal duty on such civil servants, or presumably any civil servants, not to lie to the public. I didn't think they wouldn't do it but thought it would at least be officially not allowed.

   I have been sent this by Malcolm Parkin who is a regular in the letter columns of the Scotsman and other Scottish newspapers. It is unedited except for some underlinings of my own which relate to the "radium" issue I am concerned with.
----------------------------------------------------

I well remember RAF Donibristle, near Dalgety Bay, when it was active in the fifties. A part of it was known as HMS Merlin due to a Naval presence. Donibristle was eventually used to scrap aircraft and small ships, and to dismantle them for parts, and then eventually all kinds of military kit and vehicles were scrapped there.

There always a headline when some local kid found a hand grenade, usually from an army personnel carrier that had not been properly checked. Aircraft used to arrive with parachutes and overalls still in them. A mate of mine got a pair of pilots gloves out of a wrecked Harvard.

Nobody gave a thought to radioactivity, because there was only the fluorescence and luminescence (radium) from aircraft instruments, and they were usually taken away from the site anyway. Some flammable parts (wiring harnesses, doped fabric airframe covering, rubber tyres, and paperwork mainly) were burnt in huge fires that used to give off strange explosions and vast toxic fumes. The ashes were then put on the beach to be washed away. The smell was fantastic.

I salvaged maintenance manuals and pilots notes for dozens of aircraft types before they were burnt. I also got a fair number of rounds of 0.5 inch Browning machine gun ammunition from some scrapped Mk 5 Spitfires. The precautions and procedures used then would certainly not pass muster today. The whole place was wide open for access day and night, and scrap merchants would arrive with trucks and just take stuff away.

When it was all eventually cleared up, the smooth concrete slab runways and perimeter track were quickly used for unofficial car and bike racing until about 1966, and this only stopped as factories began to be built, and builders debris began to appear on the runways. It was also a popular place for domestic driving lessons as I remember. The runways began to break up naturally, but mostly from the wear of the plant and machinery used by the factory builders. There were also complaints about noise from the owners of the new houses in the area. They would call the Fife cops, who would casually arrive and watch with interest for a while, before asking us to move on. If something really good was going on, they would sit for half an hour or so, until we had finished.

In 1967 I drove one of the last “unofficial” 100mph sprints on runway 07 / 25 for the Lothian Car Club, who used it for high speed manoeuvrability competitions. There was a goodly crowd of enthusiasts from afar, who had gathered to watch when word got out.

Afterwards, we all went to a pub in Hillend, and got thoroughly ratted before driving home over the recently (1964) opened Forth Road Bridge.

Great days.

Regards : Malcolm
-----------------------------------------------

  Nowadays with so many nanny state regulators desperately looking for something to regulate we wouldn't get away with anything like that.

  However how does it affect the current case? Well it looks like they disassembled significantly more than the 20 aircraft I assumed. On the other hand the interesting stuff was "usually" taken away and then a second time anything interesting would be taken away by scrappies. Combining those it looks like my estimate of 0.26 of a gram left was well on the high side and it may very well be that all of the dials were taken away, leaving no radium.

  Since SEPA have said that they have no information about how many aircraft were disassembled I will, in a spirit of being helpful, pass this on to them. It may not be a detailed account of the disassembling but it is certainly more than SEPA had when they started this fiasco.

 Yesterday the Scotsman published a letter disputing mine of Monday.

Radiation is naturally occurring and only dangerous in very large doses. I wore a film badge for a decade to protect me from high-accumulated doses of radiation. It has even been suggested in The Scotsman that a little radiation, like a peck of dirt, does you good.
But radioactive particles are a different matter. Plutonium is the most poisonous substance known to man

To answer it I found myself doing a bit of useful research and found that the evidence is quite clear that "particles" are not inherently more dangerous than general radiation, indeed that since "particles" can pass through the body quickly they are actually safer. I also found out about Cohen's challenge to Nader. Which resulted in this letter published today.

In reply to my letter criticising politically useful anti-nuclear scare stories, particularly the Dalgety Bay one, Dr George Shering asserts (letter 3rd April) - not entirely relevantly since nobody claims it is present at Dalgety - that "Plutonium is the most poisonous substance known to man".
In fact that honour lies with Botulinum toxin, plutonium is far down the list. This claim was originally made by Ralph Nader. It was disputed by, among others, Professor Bernard Cohen who offered to eat as much plutonium as Mr Nader would of caffeine. Nader refused.
Despite this the claim has been widely promoted by the "environmentally aware" and remains a mainstay of the anti-nuclear movement. Dr Shering's remark about the added toxicity of particles over widespread radiation is also wrong.

The theory in which a particle of plutonium dust radiates a localised spot of lung tissue has been tested and found false—such particles are more mobile than originally thought and toxicity is not measurably increased due to particulate form.

There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during 1940s; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them.

Also the difference between a particle and a clump is, to some extent, merely a matter of definition. SEPA's experts have told them that, at least in some instances, sizeable "particles" could not be further desegregated, proving that there was no specific point source with the "particle".

With the manmade (well mined from natural pitchblende) radium being no more than 0.26 of a gram when natural radium in the area is 1 gram and other radioactives 9 tons it is virtually inevitable that the large majority of "particles" will be natural concentrations and the fact, when I asked under the FoI Act, SEPA have refused to say exactly where and when their alleged chemical testing of particles, proving them to be paint, took place does not inspire confidence.

He also mentions Fukushima. Though the tsunami killed 21,000 not a single person was killed, or even injured by radiation. Anybody may confirm that the number of news stories about the non-lethal "radiation catastrophe" is considerably more than of the catastrophe that killed so many.

Nonetheless I thank Dr Shering for being more willing to openly debate the subject than SEPA. Readers may judge for themselves whether he has made my assertion that the anti-nuclear movement is based on hysteria rather than evidence less or more credible.

Reference - Plutonium toxicity and the eat it challenge http://atomicinsights.com/1995/05/how-deadly-plutonium.html

Hot particle theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity
 
  The Scotsman ran it without editing out which is remarkable for the longest letter of the day. They did change the paragraphs slightly. I have kept my 2nd last para (about Fukushima) as I wrote it but kept their other changes,
 
   Their online comments have been entirely favourable and I think the letter worked.
----------------------------------------
  On checking for another source on the Cohen - Nader challenge I found this

When Ralph Nader described plutonium as "the most toxic substance known to mankind", Cohen, then a tenured professor, offered to consume on camera as much plutonium oxide as Nader could consume of caffeine, the stimulant found in coffee and other beverages, which in its pure form has an oral (LD50) of 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats.

  I also found that he died on 17th March We have lost a valuable fighter in the cause of human progress

   This is in today's Scotsman. It was sent out to a range of papers across the UK. If anybody sees it elsewhere I would be obliged if you let me know.  

For three months, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency had promised to declare Dalgety Bay’s beach “radioactive waste” if the Ministry of Defence did not pay an unspecified amount of Danegeld. It has not done so.

Now, suddenly, Sepa has lifted this threat – at least until next May. For years Sepa has claimed the proof that the radiation could not be natural is that it consists of particles of paint – but Freedom of Information requests on the subject have shown it either has no such evidence or is deliberately refusing to provide it.

For years it has claimed to have found the radioactive “daughter elements” of radium in the rock, though the only such element is the inert gas radon.

Again it can provide no evidence of this. Now Sepa has suddenly claimed to have found radium itself, but again refuses to provide the evidence when asked under the FoI. What is undisputed is that the radiation level is less than two-thirds that in any Aberdeen Street (Sepa’s own experts told it that years ago).that there is no evidence that it in any way exceeds that occurring naturally in adjoining beaches; or that the original radium could not have exceeded 0.26 of a gram (by comparison in a square mile of land one would expect 1 gram of natural radium, 9 tons of uranium and thorium & 1.5 million tons of soil).

Beyond even that, While it is widely claimed that radiation, even at naturally occurring levels, must be dangerous and the entire anti-nuclear scare is built on this claim, there is no evidence for that and never has been . Such evidence as there is points to close to natural levels of radiation being beneficial to life. When you think about it this is unsurprising since we evolved in the natural world  According to HL Mencken “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. By his reckoning, the Scottish Government bureaucracy must be among the world’s most expert practical politicians - which goes far to explain our current troubles.

Neil Craig

    Editing in bold. They also changed the divisions I had made between paragraphs, which were, in my opinion, improvements. Which is why I am showing their paragraphs. Bearing in mind that space limitations exist I am happy with the editing here.

    I would also like to highlight this from the comment by UKIP Scotland in my Saturday article

I would issue a challenge to SEPA, to examine ANY Beach in Scotland, and I am practically certain that they will find radioactive "particles", some may be naturally occurring, and some may be "man-made", but moreover I would state that it will be impossible to distinguish between these two possible sources of any "particle" found.

   This seems a reasonable challenge which, if there is any experimental validity to SEPA's claims they could pass with ease. It also affects the scare story SEPA have run for decades about finding radioactive particles at Dounreay. Elsewhere we here good news about the "clean up" of Dounreay, which, if the beach radiation is natural, must be almost entirely an unnecessary picking of the public's pocket. 

In 2000 it had been thought cleaning up the site would take until 2063 at a cost of £4 billion. But by 2005, when the NDA was established, it was estimated the work would take until 2036 and cost £2.7 billion.

However, it is said the project should now be completed a decade earlier than that and for about £1 billion less.

   It will be interesting to see if SEPA feel able to publicly defend their case. Previously, apart from the claims proven false, they have not except to threaten legal action, against me. What is also interesting is the MSM coverage of this, or tather lack thereof. Only the BBC, whose headline is naturally both alarmist and supportive of SEPA and the Courier, but not the Scotsman, had reported SEPA's original announcement. Considering that the former PM had made this a personal issue and produced a Parliamentary debate, is an extraordinary lack.

   It is worth reading the full BBC article below the headline alongside SEPA's press release to see what an easy job "journalism" is if your only role is to reprint press releases from government sources, while censoring anything that might expand the story. Particularly egregious on the BBC's part here because the organisation, knows, beyond any dispute, that much if not all of SEPA's story they are reprinting, is factually untrue.

   Having promised/threatened to declare Dalgety Bay beach to be radioactive waste by March if the MoD did not pay them an unspecified and unspecifiable amount of danegeld the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have started to back down. 

In November last year, SEPA set deadlines for MOD to provide a credible remediation plan for the area to prevent the need to designate Dalgety Bay as radioactive contaminated land, the first such designation in the UK. However, work carried out for SEPA over the winter months showed that the situation at the beach was more complicated than initially believed, and therefore a comprehensive investigation is required, before remediation options can be identified.

Dr James Gemmill, SEPA's Radioactive Substances Unit Manager, said:
"We are satisfied that real progress is being made and, as a result, we will not be designating the beach at this time.

But the threat remains if they can get away with it

by the end of May 2013, SEPA will be in full possession of technical issues;...... At that stage we will expect action to follow urgently.

"We would prefer that the contamination at Dalgety Bay is dealt with on a voluntary basis so we can avoid the need for designation. However, SEPA can still designate the area at any time, depending on circumstances. This would be done if SEPA considers that work undertaken by MOD is inadequate, or further relevant information comes to light, or if there is no voluntary remediation following these investigations."

  Meanwhile the Scottish Information Commissioner has told me that I have to make a further appeal for SEPA to specifically answer the FoIs (which they are legally required to answer within 20 working days & don't) before determining whether they should start enforcing the law. So here goes.

Dear SEPA,
                    Regarding my various FoIs  here & numerously here about the evidence that Dalgety Bay is a "radiation hazard", going back to 12th Feb 2009 when you asserted that neither SEPA nor its officers are under a duty to answer such questions and threatened legal action if I investigated. While this was clearly contrary to law it is the road you have followed ever since. I have now been asked to appeal this refusal and once again ask you to provide the specific information requested. Not merely to say it is somewhere on our website, particularly when this is not true.

    I particularly wish factual responses to these 3 major previously asked questions:

1 - SEPA have claimed & continuously maintained for over 3 years, that particles of radioactivity could not possibly be natural because they had been scientifically proven to be made of paint. Obviously if SEPA is not wholly, completely and totally corrupt there must be specific unequivocal tested evidence for this yet for that period you have refused to produce it. Please produce the specific scientific proof.

2 - SEPA have publicly claimed to have found the "daughter elements" of radium yet have refused to provide evidence. Obviously if SEPA is not wholly, completely and totally corrupt there must be specific unequivocal tested evidence for this yet for that period you have refused to produce it. Please produce the specific scientific proof.


   This is particularly disgraceful since the scientific community say that the sole daughter element of radium
is radon; that radon is an inert gas that thus could not possibly be found as part of rock; and that in any case the amount of it produced at any one time would be orders of magnitude less than that of radium (it is undisputed that the amount of manmade radium there cannot be more than 0.26 of a gram or 1/4 of what is naturally there,  in this 1.5 million tons of soil). If SEPA have found the plural daughter elements then much of physics must be discounted and it is disgraceful that you should keep this amazing discovery from humanity.
 
3 - SEPA have claimed and maintained you have provably found radium. Obviously if SEPA is not wholly, completely and totally corrupt there must be specific unequivocal tested evidence for this since then you have refused to produce it. Please produce the specific scientific proof.
 
Since it would be unwise to let your refusal to answer FoI's slow the investigation I am also asking these new questions under the FoI or other appropriate Acts.
 
4 - What was the specific scientifically proven finding or findings since 30th November which has led you to say "work carried out for SEPA over the winter months showed that the situation at the beach was more complicated than initially believed" . This reverses your promise/threat, briefed to the MP Gordon Brown that SEPA , within 3 months "Scottish Environment Protection Agency still says that, unless the Ministry of Defence can give assurances, it will designate the land as radioactive".


5 - It has been acknowledged that SEPA have made no effort to use any close beach as a control to determine whether the radiation detected is in any measurable way excessive and thus, possibly, introduced by man. Obviously this is basic to making any scientific evaluation of the existence of any radiation beyond ordinary background. I now wish to know what efforts, if any, has SEPA made to use a beach near Dounraey as a similar control? Obviously this is basic to making any scientific evaluation of the existence of any radiation beyond ordinary background.

6 - The entire thesis that radiation close to (or at) normal background is in any way harmful depends entirely on the Linear Non-Threshold Theory of radiation danger (LNT). I would like to know what scientific evidence, not hearsay or assertion, SEPA have used to make you accept this theory as true? I ask this because, as far as i can determine, there is no actual evidential proof of this theory at or even close to, the levels involved. Indeed that the evidence that there is points in the opposite direction - to the theory known as hormesis, that at low levels radiation is beneficial to health. The laboratory evidence of hormesis at the cellular level in plants and cultures goes back nearly a century and seems unchallenged. Obviously theories without evidential support, such as astrology and homoeopathy are not scientific and if SEPA is a scientific organisation cannot be promoting the radiation scare without clear proof of harm.

 
On 14th Feb I sent a further FoI to SEPA about their Dalgety Bay claims and on 14th March (4 weeks and a day or 1 day longer than the legally required 20 working days) they replied. Here are my questions and their answers:

Q1 I therefore must ask you under the FoI for the independent chemical or perhaps simply spectrographic evidence of radium in these particles you claim to have. I will not insist on spectrographic evidence that none of the 9 tonnes of uranium and thorium naturally present had reached these bits of soil, which you claim, though this would be a most remarkable event.



A1 All data on tests carried out on particles recovered by SEPA has been provided on the reports on our website

A2 Daughter elements of Radium 226 have been measured and are therefore not non-existent.

 Q3 I must also ask you whether, after spending an estimated £4 million, you can dispute in any factual way the best (admittedly only, since you haven't even tried) calculation of the maximum possible original radiation exposure here - that any radium lost there could not exceed 1/4 of the radium naturally present in a square mile or 1/36 billionth of all the radioactive material.

A3 SEPA have not detailed any costs spent. Therefore this information is excepted under Regulation 10(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The text of which is reproduced below.
(4)A Scottish public authority may refuse to make environmental information available to the extent that - (a) it does not hold that information when an applicant's request is received.

 Q4 Finally I must ask if SEPA's remit has ever or will ever allow you to claim that any report whatsoever from SEPA ever has or ever will represent a higher standard of honesty than the total dishonesty that would be demonstrated by a failure to produce "daughter elements" of radium in solid form; WW2 era paint in the particles or pure radium particles.

A4 The progeny of Radium has been determined in the laboratory, with the results of these tests being publicly available.This information has been previously supplied in response to past enquiries.
Please refer to http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/dalgety_bay.aspx

   Not exactly informative. More importantly not, even inexactly, truthful.

  A1 - Obviously does not provide the requested evidence for their claim to have found radium. That is perhaps unsurprising since no such evidence exists so they are lying when they claim to have found it. However SEPA here have not retracted the claim by one inch, despute having been had ample time to consider it.

    This proves that, though it is a deliberate lie, it also represents the very pinnacle of honesty to which anybody in SEPA ever aspires.

  A2 - Is a lie - "radium-226, which has a half-life of 1601 years and decays into radon gas" -  sonot a series of measurable "daughter elements" as claimed but one, and one which is a noble (non-reactive) gas and thus could not possibly have been found as part of a rock. In any universe in which the most fundamental laws of physics apply SEPA can only be a wholly dishonest organisation. Obviously the necessary evidence of such "rocky" Radon gas never been produced.

  A3 - If this is in any way truthful SEPA have never made any slightest estimate of how much they have spent pushing this fraud. I cannot say for certain that this is a lie but that would be incompatible with an organisation run with the remotest concern for financial responsibility. I would be interested to know if this is in any way abnormal or undesired within the Holyrood government.

  A4 - Doesn't attempt to answer that question. Instead it gives a, dishonest, answer to 1 - to have found radium, by chemical or spetroscopic means. The only reference to radium on the page linked to is to say that there was radium in aircraft dials - something which, as previously proven, could not have added more than 1 36 billionth to the natural radioactives there. I note that, dishonest though they are, SEPA have not felt it possible to dispute in any way that the radium "threat" is indeed less that one 36 billionth of the natural radioactives.

  To - Its Public Knowledge - FoI commissioners for Scotland

I wish to request a review of SEPA's response to this FoI and indeed to their long string of previous ones. They have simply refused to answer any of the queastions.

They will not say what "independent chemical or perhaps simply spectrographic evidence of radium" they have. If they have none, as I believe, they still have a duty to publicly answer this, by saying that while they have maintained it repeatedly and deliberately it is untrue.

They have refused to produce their evidence of finding the "daughter elements" of radium bound into the rock. This would be particularly egregious, if they have found them, as this would turn the whole of modern physics on its head and it would be highly improper to prevent the world's physiscists knowing it.

They have refused to say whether they are claiming that the radium could be more than 1/4 of the naturally occuring radium or 1 36 billionth of all the radioactive material. They have previously always suggested that this is a serious threat and if they have not retracted that I submit they have a duty to say that they do not accept the only calculation that has been done and why.

They have refused to say whether they have any doubt that their claims represent the pinnacle of honesty to which SEPA ever aspire. The answer to that should be obvious and easy.

I would like a ruling on the principle of whether a government department which has lied once (or lied continiusly) and would be shown to have done so if it answered an FoI is thereby relieved of its duty to answer. I submit that it is not and thatb if the evidence it claimed once (or repeatedly) exists they have a legal duty to acknowledge that it doesn't and that while their claim did not in any way represent less than the normal (or highest) standard of honesty to which they aspire it was a deliberate lie.

I await your response.

 
 On January 9th I asked for some clarification of previous statements made by SEPA in the previous FoI and today, just shortly after the legal limit of 20 working days, the final part of their answer came in.

  This is what I asked 

Your answer on the first point - what is the theoretical maximum amount of radiation present - implies that the MoD have refused to supply data they must have known. The Mod, however, have said they have co-operated with you. I would therefore like to see a copy of the communication from the MoD refusing this reasonable request - assuming it exists.
I would also like to know what "imprecise" estimate you have been using for all this time and what it was based on?

Since SEPA decline to give even an imprecise estimate of how much effort has been put into this does SEPA accept that the average square mile of land, to a depth of 1 foot, would yield 9 tons or uranium and thorium and 1 gram, vastly more than you have actually found - if SEPA were to put enough effort into searching for it. Obviously much more if it were done in any Aberdeen which is the closest thing SEPA have produced to a control area.

  On the first point SEPA have sent me copies of the information they requested (they made it under the Freedom of Information Act ;-) but redacted (ie censored) the MoD's reply. In theory that would mean we would just have to take their word that the MoD had refused to give information about the amount of radioactive material that could possibly be there, thereby breaking the law. Or not depending on the level of trust readers may have in the integrity of anybody at SEPA.

   Fortunately that is not the case because we know precisely what information SEPA ever asked from the MoD in support of their deeply scientific inquiry into this load of bull. They asked, in a letter dated 21/12/10 "Any information that the MoD may hold on radium contamination at at former MoD site,  Dalgety bay, Fife" "I am particularly interested in historic activities that may have gave rise to the contamination eg activities with radium paint, aircraft stationed that were repaired, salvaged or destroyed on site, waste disposal areas etc."

    This is remarkably late to first be asking such questions considering their "investigation" has been goi8ng on for nearly 2 decades. Moreover it is remarkably vague and generalised request, even for a fishing expedition. I would be ashamed to have gave rise to such an unspecific request. Moreoverer, even within that they have managed to exclude any request for information about the per cent of radium in the paint or amount of paint used so it is clearly a lie to suggest that the MoD have refused to answer that question.

   On the second part of the first paragraph - SEPA having said they could not give me a "precise estimate" of the amount of possible radiation exposure & my request that they give the imprecise estimate they would have had to have to even begin any scientific investigation. They replied "SEPA have not used an imprecise estimate".

   So no actual attempt at a scientific investigation and the use of the qualification "precise" was simply a deliberate attempt of obfuscate the fact that they had not done even the most basic investigation.

   SEPA's answer to the question of whether they accept that normal land contains 9 tonnes of uranium and thorium and 1 gram of radium was

"Several of the fragments of radioactive material "particles" recovered at Dalgety Bay over the previous few years are radium sources with no uranium present ... such sources are not natural"

  Which, since it doesn't even attempt to answer the specific question in the FoI, appears to be a breach of the Act. It can also be taken as a de facto admission that my figure is perfectly correct (which it is) and that they amount of radiation which could possibly have been added is far less than trivial.

   However the most interesting thing is this claim to have, over many years, recovered pure radium. Since it is going out under a legal duty, with plenty of time to consider it, this must be accepted as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which SEPA, or any employee thereof ever aspires. It also appears to be a deliberate lie.

     I am replying to them thus.

Dear SEPA,
                    In your letter on case FOI82465 of 6th Feb you made the claim that, over the "past"few years" you have recovered a number of particles that are "are radium sources with no uranium present".

     This seems strange since SEPA's previously first claimed that you had determined that radioactive particles had been identified not by radium but by chemical tests that proved they were paint and that therefore they were assumed to be manmade radium particle. (Byron Tilly BBC Radio Scotland 2/2/2009) While not wishing to dispute that such claims, maintained ever since by SEPA, represent the absolute pinnacle of honesty to which SEPA aspire several FoI's later it became apparent that no such tests had ever proven any such thing and that it was total lie. Obviously had you had evidence that the particles were radium it would have been redundant to attempt to prove they must be by linking them to paint.

     Later SEPA said "They claim to have found ‘radium and its associated daughters’ mixed together" - Dunfermline Press 11th June 2009 also represents the very highest standard of honesty anybody at SEPA ever aspires to. It is also, of course, a total and deliberate lie since the "daughter elements" of radium are the single element radon, which being a gas could not possible be rock. In any case if you had found pure radium there would be no point in having to claim the lesser target of having found impure radium.

      I therefore must ask you under the FoI for the independent chemical or perhaps simply spectrographic evidence of radium in these particles you claim to have. I will not insist on spectrographic evidence that none of the 9 tonnes of uranium and thorium naturally present had reached these bits of soil, which you claim, though this would be a most remarkable event.

     I must also ask you to say whether you have publicly retracted the claims to have found radioactive paint or the non-existent "daughter" elements whose existence also represents the highest standard of honesty SEPA aspires to.

    I must also ask you whether, after spending an estimated £4 million, you can dispute in any factual way the best (admitedly only, since you haven't even tried) calculation of the maximum possible original radiation exposure here - that any radium lost there could not exceed 1/4 of the radium naturally present in a square mile or 1/36 billionth of all the radioactive material.

      Finally I must ask if SEPA's remit has ever or will ever allow you to claim that any report whatsoever from SEPA ever has or ever will represent a higher standard of honesty than the total dishonesty that would be demonstrated by a failure to produce "daughter elements" of radium in solid form; WW2 era paint in the particles or pure radium particles.

  SEPA, while claiming there is a radiation risk at Dalgety Bay, through numerous FoI inquiries (the latest of which have will put up shortly) have gone to great length to not even estimate how much radiation was ever released there. By comparison we know that the average square mile to a depth of 1 foot, or 3rd of a mile to a depth of 3 feet which is a better comparison with the ground SEPA have been examining, contains 3 tonnes of uranium, 6 tonnes of similarly radioactive thorium and, as a consequence of the breakdown of these, 1 gram of radium.

  So if SEPA won't make the estimate of radium that could possibly ever have been dumped there lets try it ourselves.

  Assuming each of the figures on dials, painted in radium paint was 7mm long (1/3rd inch) and 2mm wide.
  That there are 20 figures on each dial and they average twice the size of a single line
  That there were 10 painted dials per aircraft (this may be high since we are dealing with relatively primative WW2 bombers)
  20 aircraft were broken up there

   Then the total area of paint would have been  {7 X2 X 20 X 2 X 10 X 20.) 56,000 square millimeters or 0.056 square metre.

    Commercial paint is advertised as covering 13 metres with a 1 litre can. I litre of water is 1 kg. I assume paint is similar.
    Commercial paint runs at "about 6 to about 13 percent by weight of a pigment paste composition". Since radium is very many times rarer and more expensive than normal dyes I would expect it to make up a much smaller proportion than that, perhaps mixed with other pigment or with some reflective backing, but to calculate the maximum possible amount of radium I will assume the 6%.

     So the weight of radium that could possibly ever have been dumped is { 0.056 X 6% /13 ) 0.00026 kg or 0.26 g. A quarter of the amount of radium to be found there naturally.

    By comparison SEPA already know that the amount of radiation in any street in Aberdeen is more than half as much again as at Dalgety Bay ie over half a gram.

    This is all as nothing compared to the 9 tonnes of uranium and thorium but SEPA have decided to ignore the science and pretend that radiation from radium has some magical effect makingb it more important than the 9 tons of other radioactives 9 BILLION times greater (1kg = 0.001tonne). However even ignoring SEPA's fraud in pretending to ignore 99.99999999% of the radioactives reveals that their scare story is still false.
      
     There was less radium, alone, in that ground, than occurs naturally up the road in Aberdeen.

     The operative word being "was". If the dials were not recycled, or taken by souvnir hunters this paint was still water soluble and over the intervening period it is virtually certain that, on a beach in Fife, it would have got wet and mostly washed away. SEPA's answer to that is that it is possible, though there is no evidence for it, that the dials might have been burnt and that this would, in some undisclosed way, have chemically altered the paint ot make it non-soluble. However if that had happened then obviously some ot the paint would also have been altered into smoke and blown away.

     If SEPA have been telling the truth in their responses to various FoI legal questions they have made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to quantify the alleged maximum possible exposure. In which case this estimate, by default, is the most (indeed only) credible one.

    I will be sending it to SEPA to see if they have any factual dispute of this estimate and any alternative. Or if they have not, if they dispute in any way that their entire scare story is proven false and that their threat to declare the beach "radioactive contamination" is wholly, completely and totally fraudulent and could never, under any circumstances, have been made by any organisation which was not wholly, completely and totally corrupt bureaucratic empire-builders or even any organisation which, while being so corrupt, was not wholly, completely and totally scientifically illiterate.

    I will also be sending this out as a press release to the Scottish and British press and a few politicians. Anybody want to bet on how much, if any, of our media are remotely interested in reporting wholesale fraud by government departments and the deliberate attempt to falsely smear a decent community. Over the next few days we will all find out if any part at all of the MSM is remotely interested in reporting corruption, scaremongering and lies.

    I will look forward to seeing if, after repeatedly answering FoI's by saying they have no estimate of the theoretical maximum exposure, they now produce some alternative to this one.

  On 28th November I sent an FoI Enquiry to SEPA asking for information on

"Assuming SEPA have been running your investigation into alleged manmade radioactivity at Dalgety Bay in the proper scientific manner the very first thing you must have done is to determine the number of aircraft destroyed at that beach; weight of paint required to paint the numbers on each of the dials in such aircraft; and the proportion of paint that consists of radium ...

  Secondly, since any serious scientific investigation of substances requires a control example you must have carried out a similar investigation into the radioactivity level of a comparable and presumably adjoining beach"

  Unsurprisingly the answer provided no answer to these. However it does answer the questions of whether SEPA have even attempted to answer these and therefore whether it is even possible for SEPA to have been engaged in a scientific procedure. No and No.

"SEPA is considering these aspects as part of our investigation; however precise data is not available"

 "when monitoring for background (control) can be on an area of the site itself",

 "SEPA does not hold data on the rate of man hours per particle"

    If SEPA has no precise data on the maximum possible contamination and has made no serious attempt to obtain such data it simply is not engaged in a scientific investigation and is not capable of making any honest assessment pf the site. The answer implies but doe not say, that the MoD have refused to provide the data. The MoD have claimed to be co-operating with this inquiry so one or other is lying. My bet is that it is SEPA but we will see.

     The "control" area being the site itself is clearly nonsense. Warming alarmist claims that we had a particularly warm October depend on looking at previous Octobers. Not even they would say that this October was the warmest October for 11 months. SEPA clearly aspire to being far less scientific than even them.

      If they have no idea how much time has been put into searching for particles (a particle being merely a clump of rock/soil which is significantly more radioactive than the others and random variation is bound to produce a large number of them, then they can have no idea whether such clumps are more, or less, common than elsewhere, though obviously since the average Aberdeen street is more than 50% more radioactive random chance would produce many more clumps of greater radioactivity there.

      SEPA have said that unless the MoD ponies up an unspecified amount of money to take action they resolutely refuse to specify, to prevent a "threat" they are unwilling or unable to produce evidence for, within  3 months (ie at the end of January or early Feb) they will designate the land a "radiation hazard" despite there being no evidence whatsoever that it is more "hazardous" than any other similar piece of land and is agreed as being less radioactive than some. SEPA will do this on the basis that they do not need evidence and "It will not change its mind".

      They have been given the power to ruin this (or any other) thriving community anytime they want, without any scientific justification and this corrupt, lying, entirely parasitic bureaucracy intend to have their fun.

   And neither the local MP, whose legal duty is to his constituents, nor any other elected politician is willing to stand up for the people.

Another enquiry
Dear SEPA,
                    In response to your recent reply to my FoI on Dalgety Bay I would like, under the same rules, to ask for clarification.

  Your answer on the first point - what is the theoretical maximum amount of radiation present - implies that  the MoD have refused to supply data they must have known. The Mod, however, have said they have co-operated with you. I would therefore like to see a copy of the communication from the MoD refusing this reasonable request - assuming it exists.

  I would also like to know what "imprecise" estimate you have been using for all this time and what it was based on?

  Since SEPA decline to give even an imprecise estimate of how much effort has been put into this does SEPA accept that the average square mile of land, to a depth of 1 foot, would yield 9 tons or uranium and thorium and 1 gram, vastly more than you have actually found - if SEPA were to put enough effort into searching for it. Obviously much more if it were done in any Aberdeen which is the closest thing SEPA have produced to a control area.