.. Mr Goldie - ( Hearing Officer)
I appreciate this opportunity to address my objection to the
intended
expropriation by the Federal Government of the seabed at Canadian
Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range in the Nanoose Bay area
of
British Columbia.
I do so on the grounds that The Government of Canada will not confirm
that visits to the licensed area by US Navy submarines and warships
carrying nuclear war heads, will be prohibited.
In addition nuclear powered vessels in our waters carry an unacceptable
risk to human health and the environment, and should an accident occur,
the immediate area and an unpredictable surrounding radius (depending
on the magnitude of the accident), would be contaminated with
radioactive fall out for generations to come, and there is no medical
treatment: prevention is the only answer.
The presence of nuclear weapons in our territory and in
Canada is
morally indefensible and is rejected by the vast majority of our citizens.
(Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll conducted in Feb1998 showed 93 % of
Canadians in favor of Abolition of nuclear weapons, and 92% in favor
of
Canada taking a leading role). In1992 the citizens of British
Columbia
voted to become a Nuclear free province.
The Canadian Government in their recently released Policy on nuclear
weapons commits to "working to devalue the political significance
of
nuclear weapons" and the statement concludes..."that given their
catastrophic potential and the frailties of human nature, the only
safe and
realistic course is to eliminate them".
As a physician, I have no particular expertise in the legal and
constitutional aspects of this issue, others more qualified have spoken
to
these. My conscience and duty, with my medical knowledge and
experience demands that I bring the human face of awareness to this
hearing, and warn of the dangers that lurk in the presence of nuclear
weapons and nuclear power in our waters, threatening our territory
and
placing at risk an the estimated 2 million people that live in
southern BC
from a possible nuclear accident.
This is a human health issue. Contrary to the claim this agreement
would
be in the interests of National Security, Canada may be placing herself
in
a more vulnerable position as a prime target, should East -West relations
deteriorate, if this agreement goes through allowing the US to continue
to
bring nuclear weapons into our territory.
I submit that our knowledge and comprehension of the risks has
increased considerably since this agreement was first made in 1972,
times have changed and we must change too. This renewal of this
agreement gives us a 'window of opportunity' to rethink our values.
I speak as a Pediatrician, who in my early training spent six months
on the
children's oncology ward at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto,
where I saw and took part in the treatment many children with
malignancies and witnessed the effects of the carefully controlled
doses
of radiation that were given to remediate their cancers. I agonized
with
the parents and families over their heartbreaking process of gradually
coming to terms with the death of their children...surely the most
profound
of all human experiences.. I also spent a year in Haematology at the
Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and had similar experiences there.
In more recent years I specialized in handicapped
children, the deaf,
the blind and developmentally delayed, and this gave me a greater
understanding of the children who suffered similar problems as a result
of
radiation received in utero, when I spoke with their parents in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki..
I remember vividly August 6th 1945, ironically 54
years ago today,
when the world was shocked at the news of the dropping of the
first
Atomic bomb. I was 15 years old in an English boarding school
when the
news broke....My parents were P.O.W.'s in a Japanese internment camp
in
Singapore and it meant a swift end to the War in the Far East. I think
it
saved the lives of my parents, and the lives of many allied troops
poised
for the invasion of Japan. But I have since come to realize there
were
other ways in which this end could have been achieved without sacrificing
the lives of so many innocent people. What was done at the time seemed
expedient to the military and political decision makers who would not
listen to the scientists advice to demonstrate this new weapon of mass
destruction to the Japanese Chiefs of Staff, on some remote island.
The
US decision makers didn't fully comprehend the effects of radiation
released on the surviving populations, and it became a massive human
experiment that is being studied by combined teams of US and Japanese
scientists to this day. One US Admiral resigned his commission in moral
protest.
It was WRONG in my opinion, and could have been prevented and
Surrender achieved by other means if the decision had been made
involving a wider representation . But it was at the end of a long
and
grueling War..and that was then and this is now.
Let us hope our decision makers today can learn from the mistakes of
the
past, when they make decisions with potential HARM to the lives of
innocent people.
In 1989 I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a Congress
of International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (I.P.P.N.W.). Doctors
from
many countries gathered to pursue their goal to find a way to rid the
world
of nuclear weapons. Since their realization that nuclear weapons
are very
different from conventional weapons, and there can be no medical
treatment in a nuclear war, doctors formed an International
Organization to try and prevent nuclear war, and for their work at
the
height of the Cold War were awarded a Nobel Prize.(1985)
. I will never forget the plea of "Never Again" that the
Japanese doctors
made to the 3000 or so gathered there. The human suffering they
described was devastating,*and the ongoing results of radiation continue
to take their toll on survivors to this very day. We visited the Atom
Bomb
Hospital and the Museum, and met some of the survivors.
We saw microcephalic adults, 44 years old, suffering from mental
handicap as a result of the radiation they received in utero.One mother
expressed her extreme anger that she had not been told of the harmful
effects of the bomb on her unborn child, and offered termination..
The doctors who ministered to the survivors did not know what
the
people were suffering from for some time, or the true nature
of the
devastation around them.. We met some of those doctors and heard their
testimonies. .
The death rate of children in the early days and years after the bombs
dropped was greatest due to their increase susceptibility to radiation.
The effects on human health depend on the dose of radiation received.
Peak early fatalities occur nearest the epicenter with high lethal
doses of
radiation absorbed by the tissues.(600 rems considered a lethal dose)
and.
these are listed as deaths in the first year. Lesser doses (300rems)
will
cause radiation sickness and kills about 10%, who are very susceptible
to
infection from bone marrow suppression, and leukemia and other cancers
develop with high incidence in the ensuing months and years.
Those
receiving smaller doses(50 rems or less), but large enough to
be absorbed
into the system will have an increased cancer rate over a longer period
of
time, congenital malformations and inherited genetic defects.
(A Rem is a
unit of dose that takes into account the relative biological damage
due to
various kinds of radiation energy absorbed by the tissues.)
Congenital malformations occur in pregancies at the time of irradiation
and the most revealing consequences over a longer perod of time appear
to be in the genetic aberrations (The Gene Pool), affecting future
generations..*
We were shown a horrendous list of congenital birth deformities in infants
born after the bombs dropped, due to the teratogenic effect of intrauterine
irradiation, and inherited genetic defects occurred in later generations
due
to gene mutations. .. The Japanese doctors who ministered to the survivors
did not know to begin with that the sickness they were treating was
due to
radiation. We met some of those doctors and heard their testimonies..
Since then, there are many studies* done to document the effects
of
radiation on human health of the survivors of the atomic bombs..known
as the 'Hibakushka.'
The human suffering and heartache for all the families
touched by those
affected, must have been unbearable, and cannot be measured by
statistics. Those far enough away from the Epicenter to survive the
BLAST and the Flash Burns of the explosion, were exposed to a
lethal
dose of radiation and died within 48hours, those with lesser dose exposure
developed radiation sickness with vomoting and diarrhoea, extreme
thirst,
and bone marrow suppression causing bleeding into skin, gums and
internal organs...and 10% deaths would occur from infections and
hemorrhages, and few survived the first year.Lesser exposures produced
milder symptoms with loss of hair and some still survive, with an
increased risk of developing cancers.
.
Dr Mary-Wynne Ashford, made a presentation on behalf of Physicians
for
Global Survival *(PGS-C) on opening day of the Hearings at Nanaimo
and
spoke about the hazards related to nuclear powered ships and submarines
in the the report by Jackson Davis(1987) on Nuclear Accidents
in military
vessels in Canadian Ports. I refer you to the risks outlined in your
copy of
that report..
The risk of a shipboard fire causing incineration of a nuclear warhead
would release deadly carcinogenic plutonium with early fatalities in
the
immediate area from inhalation, and downwind related cancers
and over
a longer period.
The possible risk of a reactor meltdown and damage to the coolant
systems, although theoretically 'tiny' by DND estimates less than 1
in
10,000,000, nevertheless when they do happen it's 100%,.and nothing
can
be done to save lives or contain the escape of radioactive effluent
into the
surrounding water to be carried by the tides...or to stop the
fall out from
the radioactive plume.(US have lost 2 nuclear subs, Thresher
and
Scorpion, and the Soviet icebreaker Lenin suffered a meltdown ).
In either case the ability to mitigate the situation would be extremely
ineffectual and disaster planning for a radiation accident to contain
radioactive contamination and protect human and environmental health
would be virtually impossible. Evidence to
support this comes from
reports following the Chernobyl disaster where the they were not able
to
contain the radioactive contamination, and as we know now that 90%
of
the surrounding land is still contaminated 10 years later, and unusable
to grow food. The children of Chernobyl visit
Canada and other
countries each summer to breathe fresh air and rid their bodies of
stored
radiation to reduce their risk of Cancer.
Our own DND admits that in that although it has an NERT (Nuclear
Emergency Response Team) to monitor the safety of nuclear powered
ships coming into our harbors, this does not include a disaster plan
for
civilians should an accident occur.
This would result in a litany of heartache and suffering for all
the families
touched by those affected, especially those who suffer the death of
a child,
the most profound human experience.
In the Jackson Davis study* the projected effects of a meltdown, a
relatively small 80 megawatt naval reactor was estimated
to cause a
radiation exposure of 600 rems to a population for a distance of
1 Km, and would decrease exponentially further from the reactor..
The Plutonium on the ground however, would be elevated beyond
maximum permissible levels, more than 100 Km from the accident
scene,
and will remain there and leach into the ground by a process called
weathering. One can absorb quite a bit of radiation over a long time,
in the
hundreds of rads, say months or years, without dying. Gradual exposure
is
non lethal. If you absorb the same dose, say 500 rads in a fairly short
time
it could be lethal.*.
The DND Technical Assessment Berthing Reexamination Study in Aug'66
concluded that the perimeter around the vessel that would need to be
evacuated to mitigate against the effect of direct radiation from an
exposed core melt would be limited to 250 metres. This limit bears
no
relationship to of a radioactive cloud released in the meltdown,. as
we
have seen from the effects of the Chernobyl disaster.
I speak now as a mother and grandmother, who wants to see all children
grow up healthy, to enjoy this beautiful province and georgeous coastline
which is theirs to inherit.
I speak in the interests of future generations, the children and
grandchildren of British Columbians and those yet unborn, who live
in
this part of Canada.. .I speak also for children all over the world
whose
interests would be served by Canada's example and leadership in saying
"No" to this intended expropriation.
It would point the way to other nations by ending our complicity
in an
agreement which is no longer legal in International Law...(World Court
Ruling July 8th 1996), and it would ensure tomorrow's children their
right
to a nuclear weapon-free world.
Many people of this province have deep seated fears give rise
to
instinctive rejection of nuclear weapons., and the dangers inherent
in
nuclear powered ships in our waters. That is why they voted our province
to be a nuclear free zone in 1992.
You don't need a psychiatrist to tell you that this is not paranoia...these
fears are real and they must be listened to and guide our course of
action.
If we permit nuclear weapons in the Straits of Georgia and Nanoose
Bay
it would be a prime strategic target should E-W relations deteriorate,
together with the risks of nuclear powered nuclear weapons..
I CALL for an INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED study to be carried out before
Ottawa can, in all conscience, go ahead and expropriate.
As former Ambassador for Disarmament, Senator Douglas Roche said
" I am a realist, because I have been to Hiroshima" he thought any
one charged with such responsibilities should have such an experience
in advance.
REFERENCES. Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the political
value
of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century. Report of the Standing
Committee on Foreign affairs and International Trade.(SCFAIT)Dec 1998.
Govt Response Apr'99
ASHFORD Mary-Wynne. Presentation to Nanoose Bay Hearings for Physicians
for
Global Survival.(PGS) July 19th 1999.
DAVIS,Jackson (1987)Nuclear Accidents on Military Vessels in Canadian
Ports:
Site Specific Analysis for Esquimault/Victoria. Canadian Physicians
for the
Prevention of Nuclear War.
Turco R.P. Nuclear Winter: Glogal Effects of Nuclear War. Science222 1983
PUBLICATIONS of the RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH FOUNDATION (RERF)and
the ATOM
BOMB CASUALTY COMMISSION(ABCC),Combined US/Japanese studies.
The CHILDREN of the ATOM BOMB SURVIVORS. 5 Decades of combined studies
from
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.John Wily and sons. N.Y. and William Schull.
Early
Genetic studies.
CHILDREN of the ATOMIC BOMB. An American Physician's memoirs of Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima and the Marshall Islands. Duke University Press.1995 and
James
Yamezaki; Physician in charge of the Nagasaki ABCC laboratory.
SUFFERING MADE REAL. M.Susan Lindee. University of Pennsylvania.
SONG AMONG the RUINS.50 years of J/A studies of Atom Bomb survivors.
Annual meeting Nat.Academy of Sciences. April 1999.
PHYSICIAN TO THE GENE POOL.Genetic Lessons and other stories by James
Neal.