Onshore wind is potentially Britain’s lowest cost electricity source, but it’s firmly out of favour with the UK government – something made clear last Monday when energy secretary Amber Rudd, told Parliament of the premature pruning back of onshore wind subsidies

But what about offshore wind? Listen to her speech yesterday to RenewableUK’s Global Offshore Wind Conference, and it sounded like she was all for it.

“In the last 5 years alone, the amount of electricity being produced from offshore wind has more than quadrupled”, she enthused. “In the same period we have seen around £10bn of private sector investment. And the industry now supports around 14,000 jobs.

“So you represent one of the 21st century industrial success stories. You – we – are world leaders. Pioneers. Innovators. The best business minds working with the best engineers, within one of the world’s strongest policy and financial frameworks.

“And working together we now have the most operational offshore wind here in UK waters than anywhere else in the world. And that is where 21st century industrial Britain should be – leading the world. As our friends over at the Department for Business would say – Britain is Great!”

Yes, the UK’s offshore wind is a success story

At this point you might forgive delegates if a warm glow came over them as they looked forward to expanding prospects for the UK’s offshore wind sector backed by firmly supportive government policies. And after all, why not?

The UK has some of the world’s richest offshore wind resources, and is ideally situated for offshore wind deployment. Harnessing the potential of offshore wind could act as a catalyst for economic growth, inward investment and employment, as well as help the UK to meet its binding European 2020 targets on renewable energy.

Indeed, Rudd claimed that the success of the UK offshore wind industry will be a “feather that she can wear proudly in her cap” at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year.

And as she told the conference, Britain is indeed a leader in the sector, with over 5GW of offshore wind capacity already deployed, and a further 4GW consented and ready to build.

Moreover offshore wind has one key advantage over onshore – at sea, the wind blows almost all the time, as any sailor knows. So that means that offshore wind generates electricity far more dependably than onshore, with fewer slack periods, if at a higher cost.

But then, the numbers

So here’s how Rudd dropped the bad news – while making it sound utterly wonderful: “We expect to see around 10GW by 2020, much more than any country in the world. And we are achieving real progress towards that.

Just last week we saw the opening of Gwynt-y-Mor, the second largest operating offshore wind farm in the world. A £2bn project built by RWE, with the capacity to produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of around 400,000 homes.

Vattenfall’s Kentish Flats Extension will deliver an extra 15 turbines, capable of generating enough electricity to power the equivalent of 35,000 homes. And DONG’s Westermost Rough also opens next week, the first windfarm anywhere to use the next generation 6MW turbine on a large scale.

The UK already has over 5GW operational. Over 4GW has already secured support through Contracts for Difference. And there is a strong pipeline for possible future projects. All this means I am confident that we will double installed capacity in the next five years.”

Now look at those figures. We have 5GW already, we have 4GW already consented with much of it under construction, and the ambition is to deliver 10GW by 2020 – that’s just 1GW more than is already committed. In other words, the UK’s offshore wind sector faces a dramatic curtailment once the current round of construction is over and done with.

It’s true: offshore wind is expensive!

One reason for that could be that offshore wind is very expensive, a fact that is not lost on critics of the industry. The costs of producing electricity from offshore wind have not fallen fast enough to make it a viable commercial proposition, without the help of public financial support in the form of subsidies, currently given in the form of Contracts for Difference (CFDs).

And the prices in the last CFD auction in February were high, in the range of £114 to £120 / MWh guaranteed for a period of 15 years. Successful awards went to Scotland’s 448MW Neart na Gaoithe project and the 714 MW East Anglia ONE offshore wind projects. However, other Scottish and UK projects were left out in the cold. The industry aims to bring the price down to £100 / MWh by 2020.

But in Denmark, where over 1.2GW of new kit has been successfully deployed, prices are already far lower than here. The 400MW Horns Rev 3 project is set to deliver power at an industry-leading €103.10 (£73.40) / MWh.

So what’s the difference? Well first, the Danes have a firmer control over contract prices and costs. Value for money is paramount. Second, the government has put in place secure, long term poliices that give investors confidence. That keeps the cost of capital low – very important as, with the wind itself coming free, it’s the major part of the cost of the power it produces.

In the UK, by contrast, there are numerous hazards for investors to contend with. The Treasury is constantly seeking to cut costs and axe projects across the whole spectrum of public spending. The Electricity Market Reform changes to UK offshore wind subsidies by the late Coalition Government has led to uncertainty in the industry. And offshore wind is subject to additional uncertainly by having to compete in CFD auctions with other ‘less established technologies’ such as wave, tidal, and geothermal.

But the greatest fear among prospective investors is that the offshore wind industry will ultimately suffer a similar fate to that of onshore wind, where many projects have been effectively frozen in the pipeline. This has undermined confidence – and pushed up the cost of capital.

This week the EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, Miguel Arias Canete, warned that the UK’s decision to curtail this subsidy mechanism for onshore wind will make it harder for the UK to meet its legally binding climate change targets.

Offshore wind needs a supportive environment to thrive

The other problem is the UK’s obsession with nuclear power. Funding for new energy projects via the Levy Control Framework has disproportionally favoured nuclear power at the expense of offshore wind.

And the government is prepared to make truly enormous, long term commitments to nuclear. The troubled Hinkley C nuclear power station has been promised a staggering £92.50 per MWh, inflation-proofed, for the power it produces, not for 15 years like offshore wind, but for 35 years from commissioning in 2023 or beyond (if it is built at all) on top of £10 billion in construction guarantees.

That £92.50 is less that the industry’s target of £100 for offshore wind in 2020, but the subsidy goes on for more than twice as long. And it’s much more than the current Danish price of offshore wind of £73.4 per MWh – a price that reflects investor confidence and lower cost of capital.

Mike Parr, the Director of PWR Energy Consultancy, provides unequivocal evidence on this crucial point. Moreover the cost of wind power, in Denmark and elsewhere, is only going to carry on falling with experience and improvements in technology.

Significantly, the Danish model allows local people the option to take a 20% stake in projects and at cost price, so there is significant public participation in wind. So with political will and institutional capacity, highly competitive project financing, combined with very high levels of public support, offshore wind is not a hard sell in Denmark.

The case for Danish offshore wind is further strengthened when the length of contract and the effects of inflation are brought into the equation. With significantly shorter contracts the ‘levelised cost of energy’ (LCOE) is just €68 (£48.40) / MWh for Danish offshore wind, little more than half the cost of nuclear power from Hinkley C.

In short, there’s no competition: Danish offshore wind wins hands down! And that’s against both British nuclear power, and British offshore wind.

A nervous time for investors

Despite Ms. Rudd’s assertion on Wednesday that the outcome of the next round of Contract for Difference auctions will be known “in the next few weeks”, this is a nervous time for several offshore wind projects.

The industry is already starting to feel the pinch from this lack of confidence. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) has highlighted a hiatus in UK offshore wind projects coming forward. And without a strong pipeline of projects it will not be possible to secure the economies of scale necessary to drive down costs, and accelerate deployment.

Moving the goalposts for onshore wind has surely signaled to offshore wind investors that the UK government cannot be trusted to deliver on its own stated timetables and financial commitments where renewable energy is concerned.

In her speech, Rudd signaled that the CfD prices for offshore wind must come down over the next few years: “The Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework shows that costs have already fallen by over 10% since 2011, and more quickly than expected.

“Reaching £100 per megawatt hour is definitely achievable in the near future. Every pound saved puts offshore wind in a strong position to contribute even further to our decarbonisation objectives in the next decade.”

But the trajectory of those price decreases is still a major unknown, as is the budget for the Levy Control Framework post 2020. We urgently need clarity and confidence in the future of offshore wind subsidy mechanisms if the sector is to thrive.

With the imminent closure of the Longannet coal plant in Scotland and other coal-fired power stations in England, gigawatts of generating capacity are going to be lost from the UK electricity market, and very soon. Combined with the fact that we won’t see any new nuclear build this decade and perhaps not even until 2030, there’s precious little joined-up thinking on how to address potential shortfalls.

More than ever, we must make UK offshore wind work – not only to meet our targets on carbon emissions and renewable energy, but for the energy security of the nation.

Dr Ian Broadbent is a Senior Lecturer in Business Strategy, Department of Management, Aberdeen Business School at Robert Gordon University.

Professor Peter Strachan is Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management, Aberdeen Business School at Robert Gordon University.

As the largest land mammal, African elephants are keystone species in their environment. We are currently losing up to 50,000 African elephants to poaching each year with fewer than 470,000 remaining. That’s one-tenth of the population per year.

This loss rate must be contained. Stopping demand for ivory is too slow a process to do it alone. We urgently need to stop the killing. Loss of elephants is already causing serious ecological and economic damage as well as threatening national security with organized crime across Africa and abroad.

We addressed this problem by using DNA to determine the geographic origin of large ivory seizures, each weighing over half a ton. These large seizures, each worth more than US$1 million, bear the signature of large transnational organized crime (TOC) syndicates. Large seizures also represent about 70% of all ivory smuggled by weight.

All but one of the large seizures we examined that occurred over the last decade came from just two areas. Targeting these two areas for law enforcement could stop the largest amount of poaching-related mortality in Africa and choke at the source the criminal networks that allow this TOC to operate.

How we did it

We statistically assigned the genetic makeup, or genotype, of ivory to a DNA reference map we assembled from elephant samples collected across Africa over the past 15 years. We primarily acquired the DNA for the map from elephant dung samples, taking advantage of their ease of collection.

We simultaneously developed methods to extract the same DNA from ivory, allowing us to determine the origin of ivory by statistically matching the ivory genotypes to the DNA reference map.

We collected over 1,500 unique elephant samples from across Africa, using a sampling method that maximizes the chances that each sample came from a separate family. We extracted and amplified DNA from up to 16 hypervariable genetic markers from each sample, giving us high precision in assigning ivory to its place of origin.

We increased assignment accuracy by developing novel software to create a smoothed continuous DNA reference map from these samples, reflecting genetic differences among elephants the occurred over space and time.

We showed that the method is highly accurate by blindly assigning each of the reference samples, testing how close we could get to their true origin. We were able to assign any Africa elephant sample to less than 300 kilometers (186 miles) from its true origin from anywhere in Africa, often even closer. Most protected areas are farther apart than that distance.

We then examined 28 large tusk seizures that occurred between 1996 and 2014. The seizing country provided the samples, which were either subsampled by them, by INTERPOL or by us using methods we designed to assure they were representative – that is, that all the locations that contributed ivory to that seizure were adequately represented among the provided samples.

A small piece of ivory, the size of a large coin, was then cut from the base of each selected seized tusk and shipped to our lab to determine its origin.

Two hotspots

In matching tusk seizures to our DNA sample map, we learned that poachers return to same area repeatedly to fill their quotas and that ivory tends to be shipped from a different country from where it was poached.

We also learned that the number of major hotspots being poached to supply large criminal syndicates are remarkably few and slow to change. This makes hotspots from the recent past excellent predictors of future hotspots.

Since 2006, these hotspots were concentrated in just two areas, one for forest elephants and the other for savanna elephants.

The forest elephant hotspot occurred within or in close proximity to the Tridom (Tri-National Dja-Odzala-Minkébé) protected ecosystem that spans northeastern Gabon, northwestern Republic of Congo, and southeastern Cameroon, and the adjacent Dzanga Sangha Reserve in southwestern Central African Republic.

The savanna elephant hotspot was concentrated in and around southern Tanzania, especially the Selous Game Reserve but including the adjacent Niassa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique, eventually extending north to Ruaha National Park and the adjacent Rungwa Game Reserve.

What’s particularly sad is that my lab and others first identified Tanzania, and the Selous in particular, as a major hotspot in 2007 and again in 2010. Yet, Tanzania still has unprecedented levels of poaching, to the point that some of the most important elephant populations in Africa have declined by over 65%.

The magnitude of this sustained poaching, occurring in the same area for over a decade, could not have occurred without high-level corruption. Dealers had to be able to obtain the ivory and readily move it out of the country without detection over the past decade.

Equally of interest, the multi-ton Malaysia seizure we analyzed from December 2012 contained large amounts of ivory from both hotspots, suggesting a link between the major operatives in these two hotspots.

Fast response

Wildlife Crime is now the fourth or fifth largest TOC, worth $20 billion if you include fish and timber. Fighting any of these TOCs is a challenge: the networks that allow them to operate are complex.

Targeting this very small number of hotspots, however, could stop a huge portion of the killing. It could also choke at the source the major flow of ivory from entering into elaborate criminal networks where it becomes far more difficult and expensive to trace.

Unlike transit countries, source hotspots can’t change very quickly. They require large numbers of elephants and considerable infrastructure to move the ivory out of the country without detection. This infrastructure must also be developed in the next source country before it can become a major hotspot on the scale we have identified. Thus, our methods should be able to detect this.

Our lab already has the needed precision and ability to process seizures as they come in. We can accurately assign a large seizure within three weeks from the time it enters our lab. We merely require that the seizing countries promptly provide us subsamples from their recent large seizures for geographic assignment.

This was made much easier in 2013, when delegates of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) unanimously passed Decision 16.83, urging all seizing countries to turn over samples from their large seizures for origin analysis within 90 days of the seizure.

Since then, we have been collaborating with ICCWC (INTERPOL, UNODC, CITES, World Customs Organization, World Bank) and the US Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) to help us acquire these large seizures on a timely basis.

Over 90% of recent seizures since 2013 are either in our lab, en route or promised. If we continue to acquire seizures at this pace, we will surely be able to detect any changes in hotspots on a real-time basis. This approach is applicable to other species and TOCs as well.

Samuel Wasser is Research Professor of Biology at Center for Conservation Biology at University of Washington.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

A Dutch court has made history by ordering the Netherlands government to make deeper than planned for cuts in its emissions of greenhouse gases.

In its landmark legal requirement that a state should take precautions against climate change, the district court in The Hague said the government must “do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change.”

The court ruled that the Netherlands should, by 2020, reduce its CO₂ emissions by at least 25% on their 1990 levels. The government is planning cuts of around 16%, but Denmark and Germany are already on course to cut their CO₂ emissions by 40% by 2020.

The case was brought by the Urgenda Foundation – an NGO focused on the transition towards a sustainable society using only renewable energy – and nearly 900 co-plaintiffs.

Marjan Minnesma, director of Urgenda, said: “Millions of people who are already suffering the consequences of climate change are hoping that we, the people that have caused the emissions and have the means to reduce them, will intervene while there is still time.”

Next, Belgium, Norway, the Philippines and Peru

Urgenda says its arguments are supported by the Oslo Principles, which say that states have the legal obligation to avert dangerous climate change. Comparable legal cases are being prepared in Belgium, Norway, the Philippines and Peru.

Carroll Muffett, the president and CEO of the Centre for International Environmental Law, said: “At the heart of this landmark case lies a simple, terrible truth: in failing to take ambitious action to confront climate change, the government of the Netherlands is threatening the lives, the well-being and the human rights of its own citizens.”

“The case reflects a growing awareness among people worldwide that the failure to act on climate change violates fundamental principles of human rights.”

“A decision of this kind from any court sends an important signal. States and polluters should take careful note. There is a growing movement of climate litigation around the world, a challenge to inertia. Climate change cannot wait.”

Some thought the court had not gone far enough. Wendel Trio, director of Climate Action Network Europe, said: “The task specified by the ruling is not too challenging. The target should be much higher than 25% in order to be truly in line with what is needed to tackle climate change.”

However, Professor Muffett thinks the judgement will be hugely influential. He said: “Governments, especially in Europe, will be going to the UN’s Paris climate negotiations in December very cognisant of what this court has said. The context on the road to Paris is changing fast.”

50 years of health advances may be lost unless we confront climate change.

In another development this week, an international commission of medical experts has stated that climate change could undermine the last half-century of gains in development and global health.

Writing in The Lancet medical journal, the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change says the potentially catastrophic risk to human health posed by climate change has been underestimated.

But they add that many responses to climate change have direct and indirect health benefits – from reducing air pollution to improving diet – and so efforts to reduce the threat offer an unparalleled chance for far-reaching gains in health.

This means that international efforts to tackle climate change – “the defining challenge of our generation” – also represent one of the greatest opportunities to improve health worldwide this century. But while the technologies and finance required to address the problem do exist, the global political will to implement them is lacking.

Professor Hugh Montgomery, one of the commission’s co-chairs and director of the University College London (UCL) Institute for Human Health and Performance, UK, says:

“Climate change is a medical emergency. It thus demands an emergency response, using the technologies available right now. Under such circumstances, no doctor would consider a series of annual case discussions and aspirations adequate, yet this is exactly how the global response to climate change is proceeding.”

A fearful combination of direct and indirect impacts

Professor Anthony Costello, another of the commission’s co-chairs and director of the UCL Institute for Global Health, says:

“Climate change has the potential to reverse the health gains from economic development that have been made in recent decades – not just through the direct effects on health from a changing and more unstable climate, but through indirect means such as increased migration and reduced social stability.”

The report says the direct health impacts of climate change come from the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, especially heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms. Indirect impacts result from changes in infectious disease patterns, air pollution, food insecurity and malnutrition, involuntary migration, displacement and conflicts.

The commission is an extensive collaboration between experts from Europe and China. Its other co-chair, Professor Peng Gong, from Tsinghua University, Beijing, says: “The health community has responded to many grave threats to health in the past.

“It took on entrenched interests such as the tobacco industry, and led the fight against HIV/AIDS. Now is the time for us to lead the way in responding to another great threat to the human and environmental health of our generation.”

Alex Kirby wites for Climate News Network.

The report: ‘Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health‘ is published in The Lancet.

At the end of last month the Veterans Appeals Tribunal Decision on the Case Jean Mahoney vs. Australian Repatriation Commission was published.

The result was a win for the appellant, setting aside of the earlier Australian government decision not to grant a pension to the widow of a veteran who worked among the ruins of Hiroshima and later died from metastatic colon cancer.

I was the expert witness in this case and persuaded the Australian Tribunal (in an expert report and with oral cross examination by telephone, Brisbane to Riga) that the radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was not applicable to the kind of internal exposure to radioactive particles which her late husband, George Mahoney will have received.

I was bought into this case by Dr David Douglas who had been also retained as an expert by the widow, and with whom I have worked on another successful appeal in the past. Dr Douglas also gave evidence, and largely supported the arguments relating to internal exposures.

The particular argument I advanced is an extremely important one in internal radiological protection, one at the core of the arguments of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), and it was opposed by an expert from the Australian National Radiological Protection Board (ARPANSA) who argued the model of the ICRP.

A trial of two risk models

So this case was, in effect, a trial of the two risk models, that of the ECRR and that of the ICRP. It was decided by the judgement in favour of the ECRR.

The appellant’s late husband, George Mahoney, was stationed in Japan between 5th March 1946 and 23rd April 1955 as a member of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF). He died on 7th July 1990 from metastatic colon cancer.

Mrs Mahoney applied for (and was refused) a pension on the grounds that the death was caused by her husband’s exposure to residual radiation at Hiroshima, where he worked. The original refusal basis was (like all the British Test Veteran refusals) that his dose was too low to cause cancer.

This statement was based on the ICRP radiation risk model which holds that a ‘dose’ to the organ concerned of upwards of 1000mSv is necessary to cause a 50% increased risk of colon cancer. The ICRP analysis is based on the cancer yield of the External Acute gamma radiation ‘dose’ to individuals in the famous ‘Life Span Study’ the LSS.

So (if the LSS is a true reflection of the cancer yield) the whole colon, every cell in the colon, and every cell in the body of the exposed individual will have had to receive 1,000mSv for the person the develop colon cancer.

But the problem with this approach is that cancer does not start in the ‘whole organ’. It starts in one cell, or perhaps in a small group of cells, so the dose necessary to cause the genetic damage leading to cancer has only to be large enough in one small part of the colon.

Such a dose could be easily delivered from a Uranium particle for example, inhaled and ingested from the contaminated dust in the ruins of Hiroshima. We know that there were such particles because my colleague (and ECRR scientist) Prof. Shoji Sawada measured anomalous Uranium residues from the famous ‘black rain’ in Hiroshima in 1983. This is the key point.

The approach of the Australian Commission in deciding these issues is to see if they fit within a ‘statement of principles’ (SoP). Clause 6 of the relevant SoP states that for the Pension to be awarded for malignant colon cancer:

[the applicant must have] received a cumulative equivalent dose of at least 100mSv of ionising radiation to the colorectum at least five years before the clinical onset of malignant neoplasm …

Cumulative equivalent dose is defined in Clause (9) of the SoP to mean: “The total dose of ionising radiation received by the particular organ or tissue … “.

Hold it there: ‘or tissue’

The case pivoted on these two words, “or tissue”. Of course, ECRR would be happy if this interpretation were applied, it is the key to the entire risk model issue. And the Tribunal seized on this and used it as its basis for finding for the appellant.

It agreed that the veteran could have inhaled or ingested radioactive particles from the dust in the rubble of the destroyed city and that these could have lodged in the colonic surface tissue. They refer to my oral evidence:

Dr Busby: “It’s the dose to the single cell where the tumour develops that’s important … so we are talking about tissue, we are not talking about whole organ … and of course the dose to that from a uranium particle that’s been trapped in the colonic epithelium, because it’s only the epithelium that we should be concerned about, this is on the surface of the inside of the colon, those are the cells that replicate and those are the ones that develop cancer.

“The cancer never develops on other parts of the colon, from the muscular part of the colon or the outer part of the colon. You rarely get cancers there, almost never.”

The Tribunal: “The applicant is right. The wording of factor 6(1) does not require that the whole of the colorectum be exposed to the requisite level of radiation.

“Nor does it suggest on its face that exposure of parts of the organ – especially those parts of the organ that are vulnerable to ionising radiation – is only problematic if the exposure is averaged across the whole organ, including parts that were not exposed and which might not be vulnerable to the effects of ionising radiation) and the average level exceeds the requisite level … “

And to make no mistake:

“As Dr Busby pointed out in his evidence, the risk of cancer only arises when certain cells within the colorectum are exposed to ionising radiation.

“It would be odd if the Repatriation Medical Authority intended that radiation be assessed across the whole organ including parts of the organ that were known not to be vulnerable to the development of cancer as a result of radiation exposure when vulnerable but localised areas might have been exposed to an excessive dose.”

Also on trial – Hiroshima’s ‘black rain’

The Tribunal also accepted that Hiroshima was contaminated by the ‘black rain’: “Dr Busby produced a 1983 study which showed that areas to the north-west of the hypocentre of the blast experienced ‘black rain’ shortly after the bomb was detonated.

“Black rain is a phenomenon that occurs following an atomic blast when large amounts of material are taken up into the atmosphere. The material falls to earth in the course of a downpour which inevitably follows the blast. Dr Busby said that the ‘black rain’ contained radioactive materials including nanoparticles of enriched uranium.”

The Defence (ARPANSA) argument based on ICRP was discounted, the ICRP risk model was set aside for internal exposures of this sort, and the case was won by the widow.

This is the second Uranium particle colon cancer veteran case in which I have given evidence and which has been won; the earlier one was the Stewart Dyson Coroner jury case in 2009 where I mobilised all the same arguments and persuaded the jury that the cancer that killed Dyson, a Lance Corporal with the Royal Pioneer Corps, was caused by exposure to Uranium particles in Iraq.

Interestingly, the Secretary of State for Defence (SSD) who had been informed of this decision under Rule 43 of the Coroner Act wrote back to the West Midlands coroner Robin Balmain and disputed the decision. But, Mr Balmain wrote back:

“It is not a debate, the jury found what it found and I am bound by Rule 43 to communicate this to you. Later, when Dysons’s widow went to use the coroner inquest jury decision to claim a pension, it was refused by the SSD.”

I also gave evidence in 2012 in Los Angeles on a case against Boeing involving colon cancer in a woman, Debra Dawson, who developed colon cancer following exposure to uranium particles near the Santa Susana nuclear site (as did her husband).

For some reason the case was unexpectedly abandoned by the attorney that had commissioned me. These are big dogs. Maybe they made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

But for UK bomb test veterans, it’s another story

There is a most interesting aspect to all this. And that is the difference between this Australian case and the treatment meted out to me in the UK Courts in relation to my expert evidence before the British nuclear test veterans Ionising Radiation Pensions appeals.

Here, in the Upper Tier appeal, the SSD attacked me on the basis that
(a) I was not an expert and
(b) even if I were, the fact that I am an activist (writing articles like this one, making videos) rules me out since that makes me ‘biased’ under English law.

I was in the witness box in the Royal Courts of Justice in June 2014 before Sir William Charles (the judge) for three days continuously being hammered by the SSD Queens Counsel.

My evidence before the Pensions Appeals Tribunals had been sidelined by the attorneys for the veterans (something I have earlier written about in The Ecologist and elsewhere). The judge was convinced and made a Direction that I could not be an expert in these issues in a British Tribunal.

By the way, this particular judge has been seriously criticised for bad judgment, for example in a thundering Guardian op-ed by Joshue Rozenberg. It turned out that he did not have the legal right to recommend any such thing, and the Direction is currently subject of a Judicial Review application.

Meanwhile, the successful appeal against the original decision on the veterans has been directed to a new hearing presided over by a High Court Judge, HH Judge McKenna, a woman, and head of the Upper Tier Tribunal. Busby is now the Representative (i.e. the attorney).

We all quake before the Majesty of the Law

I don’t think that this situation has ever arisen in the history of English Law. Here you have an expert who can persuade courts that there is a fatal error in the current assessment of radiation risk, of the evidence.

He gives evidence which causes four Pensions appeals cases cases to succeed before a judge, Hugh Stubbs. The evidence also persuades a coroner jury. And now the same evidence persuades the judge in the Australian Mahoney case.

In the 2013 combined 13-case hearing in London, following the removal of the commissioning attorneys Rosenblatts, this evidence is excluded by the new prosecution lawyers, Hogan Lovell, and is not considered.

The judge in the case, the same Hugh Stubbs, promptly dies before anyone can ask him to explain what is going on. But before he does so, Stubbs allows an appeal on the basis of Busby’s exclusion. The appeal is successful and the case is sent back for a new hearing.

But the expert (Busby) is now excluded from giving evidence by a new Judge, Sir William Charles. The expert (Busby) then becomes the representative (same as the lawyer), with the ability to cross examine Defence witnesses and refer to the original evidence (though the extent to which this is possible we wait to see).

Is there a precedent for an expert becoming a representative? I think not. What a circus! Anyway, you have to agree, not boring. Watch this space.

Dr Chris Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk and the author of Uranium and Health – The Health Effects of Exposure to Uranium and Uranium Weapons Fallout (Documents of the ECRR 2010 No 2, Brussels, 2010). For details and current CV see chrisbusbyexposed.org. For accounts of his work see greenaudit.org, llrc.org and nuclearjustice.org.

What will become of UK energy policy now that the Conservative Party holds all the levers?

The government has already given clear indications of its plans to pare back onshore wind in recent days.

Tomorrow, 24th June, is the turn of offshore wind, when energy secretary Amber Rudd gives one of her first keynote speeches at the Global Offshore Wind Conference.

Rudd has been described as ‘really green’ in the past, but that is unlikely to reassure the offshore wind industry. With the government apparently committed to nuclear and shale gas and oil, renewables companies are wondering if they still have a place at the table. Here’s how the policy landscape looks to us.

Damage onshore

The government’s first big energy decision was confirmed with the announcement that the renewables-obligation subsidy scheme would be closing next April 1, a year earlier than planned. Confidence in the renewables industry has been wrecked as a result, though it goes further than that: the companies supporting renewables are the big power companies. The move is arguably as much a move against them as anyone.

Relations with the Scottish government have been damaged, with Nicola Sturgeon and others describing the decision as “wrong-headed”, “perverse” and “downright outrageous”.

Scotland has backed onshore wind for more than a decade as a cheap and proven source of low-carbon electricity. According to industry body Scottish Renewables, the decision will cost Scotland alone up to £3bn in investment and put at risk many thousands of highly paid jobs.

The move will also hit consumer utility bills. Keith Anderson, chief operating officer of Scottish Power, has estimated it will cost consumers between £2bn-3bn in more expensive electricity generation. This will increase the risk of fuel poverty across the UK (which is much higher in Scotland than England).

Anxiety offshore

Even before the election, offshore wind was not a good place to be. The sector has seen many projects mothballed and a number of key players drop out altogether in the face of a subsidy regime that is insufficient.

Offshore is already now much smaller than originally envisaged. It remains an expensive option in the UK even compared to new nuclear, and although costs are falling, it is not being deployed on the scale necessary to reduce costs to the point that it is commercially viable. If the subsidies are now cut, it will become a dead duck.

Compare Denmark, where the industry is now seeing costs fall dramatically through learning by doing. While the industry has benefited from highly competitive support mechanisms, deployment has been greatly facilitated by having 20% local ownership of projects.

Shallower waters have helped too, but the UK could still learn from the Danish approach. Danish offshore wind costs are significantly less than the projected new nuclear build costs at Hinkley Point C in Somerset in the UK, the country’s first new nuclear plant since the 1990s.

Bright nuclear future?

The Tories have long backed new nuclear power as the panacea to combat the looming electricity crunch that is often talked about in energy circles. Yet new nuclear is proving so challenging across the world that delivering even one new station will be no easy task.

As Hinkley Point C has already illustrated, the financial costs of new nuclear are enormous, and construction overruns look inevitable. The government also faces an impending legal challenge by the Austrian government over the up to £25bn of state aid required to bring the project to fruition.

This could delay completion by up to four years. Meanwhile Greenpeace Energy, Germany’s largest energy cooperative, is suing the European Commission for allowing the state aid to go ahead. In sum, it might well be 2030 before we see the plant generating any new electricity for UK consumers – about seven years later than intended.

This is a big problem for Rudd. Hinkley Point was promising to generate up to 7% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2023, at a time when big coal-fired stations in Scotland and England are closing. New and significant investment in energy infrastructure is needed before 2020 but it is currently unclear where this new generating capacity is going to come from.

Fast-track fracking

David Cameron has also made clear the government’s commitment to shale gas and its desire to repeat the US revolution here. It promises new tax revenues, jobs and a more secure gas supply. Yet these benefits must be balanced against the need to protect land and water supplies and manage hostile public opinion.

One widely overlooked issue is the infrastructure, which will take time and money to build. Fracking in the US requires an oil price to be at least $60 per barrel to be economical, and in some areas up to $100. With Brent Crude in the new era of mid $60 per barrel, is fracking economically feasible? Evidence from the US suggests not.

Earlier this year the Commons Environmental Audit Committee questioned whether fracking was compatible with UK climate-change targets. With the fifth carbon budget due soon to set targets beyond 2027, this presents Rudd with another conundrum.

The UN climate change conference in Paris later this year may well prove a very challenging conversation for the government. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this central strand of the government’s new energy agenda has some serious credibility issues.

The big picture

Put this all together and the government’s emerging approach to wind looks very unwise. New nuclear looks a very costly and unreliable drain on the government’s budget, while fracking looks expensive, incompatible with emissions targets and probably uneconomic at current oil prices.

It remains to be seen if these technologies will yield any long-term and positive outcomes for the country.

If the government gets it wrong, the consumer could be saddled with soaring electricity and gas bills for years to come. If ever we needed some sign of reprieve for UK renewables, it is now.

Peter Strachan is Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management at Robert Gordon University.

Alex Russell is Head of Department of Management and Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Aberdeen Business School at Robert Gordon University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

At the end of last month the Veterans Appeals Tribunal Decision on the Case Jean Mahoney vs. Australian Repatriation Commission was published.

The result was a win for the appellant, setting aside of the earlier Australian government decision not to grant a pension to the widow of a veteran who worked among the ruins of Hiroshima and later died from metastatic colon cancer.

I was the expert witness in this case and persuaded the Australian Tribunal (in an expert report and with oral cross examination by telephone, Brisbane to Riga) that the radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was not applicable to the kind of internal exposure to radioactive particles which her late husband, George Mahoney will have received.

I was bought into this case by Dr David Douglas who had been also retained as an expert by the widow, and with whom I have worked on another successful appeal in the past. Dr Douglas also gave evidence, and largely supported the arguments relating to internal exposures.

The particular argument I advanced is an extremely important one in internal radiological protection, one at the core of the arguments of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), and it was opposed by an expert from the Australian National Radiological Protection Board (ARPANSA) who argued the model of the ICRP.

A trial of two risk models

So this case was, in effect, a trial of the two risk models, that of the ECRR and that of the ICRP. It was decided by the judgement in favour of the ECRR.

The appellant’s late husband, George Mahoney, was stationed in Japan between 5th March 1946 and 23rd April 1955 as a member of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF). He died on 7th July 1990 from metastatic colon cancer.

Mrs Mahoney applied for (and was refused) a pension on the grounds that the death was caused by her husband’s exposure to residual radiation at Hiroshima, where he worked. The original refusal basis was (like all the British Test Veteran refusals) that his dose was too low to cause cancer.

This statement was based on the ICRP radiation risk model which holds that a ‘dose’ to the organ concerned of upwards of 1000mSv is necessary to cause a 50% increased risk of colon cancer. The ICRP analysis is based on the cancer yield of the External Acute gamma radiation ‘dose’ to individuals in the famous ‘Life Span Study’ the LSS.

So (if the LSS is a true reflection of the cancer yield) the whole colon, every cell in the colon, and every cell in the body of the exposed individual will have had to receive 1,000mSv for the person the develop colon cancer.

But the problem with this approach is that cancer does not start in the ‘whole organ’. It starts in one cell, or perhaps in a small group of cells, so the dose necessary to cause the genetic damage leading to cancer has only to be large enough in one small part of the colon.

Such a dose could be easily delivered from a Uranium particle for example, inhaled and ingested from the contaminated dust in the ruins of Hiroshima. We know that there were such particles because my colleague (and ECRR scientist) Prof. Shoji Sawada measured anomalous Uranium residues from the famous ‘black rain’ in Hiroshima in 1983. This is the key point.

The approach of the Australian Commission in deciding these issues is to see if they fit within a ‘statement of principles’ (SoP). Clause 6 of the relevant SoP states that for the Pension to be awarded for malignant colon cancer:

[the applicant must have] received a cumulative equivalent dose of at least 100mSv of ionising radiation to the colorectum at least five years before the clinical onset of malignant neoplasm …

Cumulative equivalent dose is defined in Clause (9) of the SoP to mean: “The total dose of ionising radiation received by the particular organ or tissue … “.

Hold it there: ‘or tissue’

The case pivoted on these two words, “or tissue”. Of course, ECRR would be happy if this interpretation were applied, it is the key to the entire risk model issue. And the Tribunal seized on this and used it as its basis for finding for the appellant.

It agreed that the veteran could have inhaled or ingested radioactive particles from the dust in the rubble of the destroyed city and that these could have lodged in the colonic surface tissue. They refer to my oral evidence:

Dr Busby: “It’s the dose to the single cell where the tumour develops that’s important … so we are talking about tissue, we are not talking about whole organ … and of course the dose to that from a uranium particle that’s been trapped in the colonic epithelium, because it’s only the epithelium that we should be concerned about, this is on the surface of the inside of the colon, those are the cells that replicate and those are the ones that develop cancer.

“The cancer never develops on other parts of the colon, from the muscular part of the colon or the outer part of the colon. You rarely get cancers there, almost never.”

The Tribunal: “The applicant is right. The wording of factor 6(1) does not require that the whole of the colorectum be exposed to the requisite level of radiation.

“Nor does it suggest on its face that exposure of parts of the organ – especially those parts of the organ that are vulnerable to ionising radiation – is only problematic if the exposure is averaged across the whole organ, including parts that were not exposed and which might not be vulnerable to the effects of ionising radiation) and the average level exceeds the requisite level … “

And to make no mistake:

“As Dr Busby pointed out in his evidence, the risk of cancer only arises when certain cells within the colorectum are exposed to ionising radiation.

“It would be odd if the Repatriation Medical Authority intended that radiation be assessed across the whole organ including parts of the organ that were known not to be vulnerable to the development of cancer as a result of radiation exposure when vulnerable but localised areas might have been exposed to an excessive dose.”

Also on trial – Hiroshima’s ‘black rain’

The Tribunal also accepted that Hiroshima was contaminated by the ‘black rain’: “Dr Busby produced a 1983 study which showed that areas to the north-west of the hypocentre of the blast experienced ‘black rain’ shortly after the bomb was detonated.

“Black rain is a phenomenon that occurs following an atomic blast when large amounts of material are taken up into the atmosphere. The material falls to earth in the course of a downpour which inevitably follows the blast. Dr Busby said that the ‘black rain’ contained radioactive materials including nanoparticles of enriched uranium.”

The Defence (ARPANSA) argument based on ICRP was discounted, the ICRP risk model was set aside for internal exposures of this sort, and the case was won by the widow.

This is the second Uranium particle colon cancer veteran case in which I have given evidence and which has been won; the earlier one was the Stewart Dyson Coroner jury case in 2009 where I mobilised all the same arguments and persuaded the jury that the cancer that killed Dyson, a Lance Corporal with the Royal Pioneer Corps, was caused by exposure to Uranium particles in Iraq.

Interestingly, the Secretary of State for Defence (SSD) who had been informed of this decision under Rule 43 of the Coroner Act wrote back to the West Midlands coroner Robin Balmain and disputed the decision. But, Mr Balmain wrote back:

“It is not a debate, the jury found what it found and I am bound by Rule 43 to communicate this to you. Later, when Dysons’s widow went to use the coroner inquest jury decision to claim a pension, it was refused by the SSD.”

I also gave evidence in 2012 in Los Angeles on a case against Boeing involving colon cancer in a woman, Debra Dawson, who developed colon cancer following exposure to uranium particles near the Santa Susana nuclear site (as did her husband).

For some reason the case was unexpectedly abandoned by the attorney that had commissioned me. These are big dogs. Maybe they made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

But for UK bomb test veterans, it’s another story

There is a most interesting aspect to all this. And that is the difference between this Australian case and the treatment meted out to me in the UK Courts in relation to my expert evidence before the British nuclear test veterans Ionising Radiation Pensions appeals.

Here, in the Upper Tier appeal, the SSD attacked me on the basis that
(a) I was not an expert and
(b) even if I were, the fact that I am an activist (writing articles like this one, making videos) rules me out since that makes me ‘biased’ under English law.

I was in the witness box in the Royal Courts of Justice in June 2014 before Sir William Charles (the judge) for three days continuously being hammered by the SSD Queens Counsel.

My evidence before the Pensions Appeals Tribunals had been sidelined by the attorneys for the veterans (something I have earlier written about in The Ecologist and elsewhere). The judge was convinced and made a Direction that I could not be an expert in these issues in a British Tribunal.

By the way, this particular judge has been seriously criticised for bad judgment, for example in a thundering Guardian op-ed by Joshue Rozenberg. It turned out that he did not have the legal right to recommend any such thing, and the Direction is currently subject of a Judicial Review application.

Meanwhile, the successful appeal against the original decision on the veterans has been directed to a new hearing presided over by a High Court Judge, HH Judge McKenna, a woman, and head of the Upper Tier Tribunal. Busby is now the Representative (i.e. the attorney).

We all quake before the Majesty of the Law

I don’t think that this situation has ever arisen in the history of English Law. Here you have an expert who can persuade courts that there is a fatal error in the current assessment of radiation risk, of the evidence.

He gives evidence which causes four Pensions appeals cases cases to succeed before a judge, Hugh Stubbs. The evidence also persuades a coroner jury. And now the same evidence persuades the judge in the Australian Mahoney case.

In the 2013 combined 13-case hearing in London, following the removal of the commissioning attorneys Rosenblatts, this evidence is excluded by the new prosecution lawyers, Hogan Lovell, and is not considered.

The judge in the case, the same Hugh Stubbs, promptly dies before anyone can ask him to explain what is going on. But before he does so, Stubbs allows an appeal on the basis of Busby’s exclusion. The appeal is successful and the case is sent back for a new hearing.

But the expert (Busby) is now excluded from giving evidence by a new Judge, Sir William Charles. The expert (Busby) then becomes the representative (same as the lawyer), with the ability to cross examine Defence witnesses and refer to the original evidence (though the extent to which this is possible we wait to see).

Is there a precedent for an expert becoming a representative? I think not. What a circus! Anyway, you have to agree, not boring. Watch this space.

Dr Chris Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk and the author of Uranium and Health – The Health Effects of Exposure to Uranium and Uranium Weapons Fallout (Documents of the ECRR 2010 No 2, Brussels, 2010). For details and current CV see chrisbusbyexposed.org. For accounts of his work see greenaudit.org, llrc.org and nuclearjustice.org.

What will become of UK energy policy now that the Conservative Party holds all the levers?

The government has already given clear indications of its plans to pare back onshore wind in recent days.

Tomorrow, 24th June, is the turn of offshore wind, when energy secretary Amber Rudd gives one of her first keynote speeches at the Global Offshore Wind Conference.

Rudd has been described as ‘really green’ in the past, but that is unlikely to reassure the offshore wind industry. With the government apparently committed to nuclear and shale gas and oil, renewables companies are wondering if they still have a place at the table. Here’s how the policy landscape looks to us.

Damage onshore

The government’s first big energy decision was confirmed with the announcement that the renewables-obligation subsidy scheme would be closing next April 1, a year earlier than planned. Confidence in the renewables industry has been wrecked as a result, though it goes further than that: the companies supporting renewables are the big power companies. The move is arguably as much a move against them as anyone.

Relations with the Scottish government have been damaged, with Nicola Sturgeon and others describing the decision as “wrong-headed”, “perverse” and “downright outrageous”.

Scotland has backed onshore wind for more than a decade as a cheap and proven source of low-carbon electricity. According to industry body Scottish Renewables, the decision will cost Scotland alone up to £3bn in investment and put at risk many thousands of highly paid jobs.

The move will also hit consumer utility bills. Keith Anderson, chief operating officer of Scottish Power, has estimated it will cost consumers between £2bn-3bn in more expensive electricity generation. This will increase the risk of fuel poverty across the UK (which is much higher in Scotland than England).

Anxiety offshore

Even before the election, offshore wind was not a good place to be. The sector has seen many projects mothballed and a number of key players drop out altogether in the face of a subsidy regime that is insufficient.

Offshore is already now much smaller than originally envisaged. It remains an expensive option in the UK even compared to new nuclear, and although costs are falling, it is not being deployed on the scale necessary to reduce costs to the point that it is commercially viable. If the subsidies are now cut, it will become a dead duck.

Compare Denmark, where the industry is now seeing costs fall dramatically through learning by doing. While the industry has benefited from highly competitive support mechanisms, deployment has been greatly facilitated by having 20% local ownership of projects.

Shallower waters have helped too, but the UK could still learn from the Danish approach. Danish offshore wind costs are significantly less than the projected new nuclear build costs at Hinkley Point C in Somerset in the UK, the country’s first new nuclear plant since the 1990s.

Bright nuclear future?

The Tories have long backed new nuclear power as the panacea to combat the looming electricity crunch that is often talked about in energy circles. Yet new nuclear is proving so challenging across the world that delivering even one new station will be no easy task.

As Hinkley Point C has already illustrated, the financial costs of new nuclear are enormous, and construction overruns look inevitable. The government also faces an impending legal challenge by the Austrian government over the up to £25bn of state aid required to bring the project to fruition.

This could delay completion by up to four years. Meanwhile Greenpeace Energy, Germany’s largest energy cooperative, is suing the European Commission for allowing the state aid to go ahead. In sum, it might well be 2030 before we see the plant generating any new electricity for UK consumers – about seven years later than intended.

This is a big problem for Rudd. Hinkley Point was promising to generate up to 7% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2023, at a time when big coal-fired stations in Scotland and England are closing. New and significant investment in energy infrastructure is needed before 2020 but it is currently unclear where this new generating capacity is going to come from.

Fast-track fracking

David Cameron has also made clear the government’s commitment to shale gas and its desire to repeat the US revolution here. It promises new tax revenues, jobs and a more secure gas supply. Yet these benefits must be balanced against the need to protect land and water supplies and manage hostile public opinion.

One widely overlooked issue is the infrastructure, which will take time and money to build. Fracking in the US requires an oil price to be at least $60 per barrel to be economical, and in some areas up to $100. With Brent Crude in the new era of mid $60 per barrel, is fracking economically feasible? Evidence from the US suggests not.

Earlier this year the Commons Environmental Audit Committee questioned whether fracking was compatible with UK climate-change targets. With the fifth carbon budget due soon to set targets beyond 2027, this presents Rudd with another conundrum.

The UN climate change conference in Paris later this year may well prove a very challenging conversation for the government. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this central strand of the government’s new energy agenda has some serious credibility issues.

The big picture

Put this all together and the government’s emerging approach to wind looks very unwise. New nuclear looks a very costly and unreliable drain on the government’s budget, while fracking looks expensive, incompatible with emissions targets and probably uneconomic at current oil prices.

It remains to be seen if these technologies will yield any long-term and positive outcomes for the country.

If the government gets it wrong, the consumer could be saddled with soaring electricity and gas bills for years to come. If ever we needed some sign of reprieve for UK renewables, it is now.

Peter Strachan is Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management at Robert Gordon University.

Alex Russell is Head of Department of Management and Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Aberdeen Business School at Robert Gordon University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The camp has been a staple of the Resurgence calendar and has given readers and writers the opportunity to gather at the beautiful Green & Away outdoor venue in Worcestershire. This year’s camp promises to be as exciting as ever, with the usual array of stimulating speakers, delectable organic food, enchanting music, woodland walks and local ales and ciders. 

The camp is hosted by Resurgence’s Satish Kumar and editor Greg Neale and lasts three days from Thursday July 30 to August 2 at Green & Away in Bransford, Worcester, a beautiful organic farm on the River Teme.

The camp was first held in 1998 and has been an annual fixture ever since. Usually attended by up to 100 people, it’s big enough to mean a wide range of activities, and small enough to meet most of the attendees and speakers and have in depth discussions over a drink or cake.

Activists, poets, performers and editors converge
This year’s camp will feature Paul Mobbs, environmental investigator and campaigner: Ecological Futures; Julian Rose, author and environmental activist; Matt Harvey, author and poet; Joe Hoare, laughter coach: awakening the laughing Buddha; Satish Kumar, Editor-in-Chief, Resurgence & Ecologist; Nicola Peel, Eyes of Gaia and Alex Nunn, Action for Happiness.

There will also be a range of workshops including: Qi Kong – Dong Sticks (bamboo stick exercises) with June Mitchell; Harmony Singing around the fire with Janne Tooby and Toni Gilligan; and Indian Raga and embodied voicework with Will Tooby.

The thinking behind the camp has always been to allow readers and writers to gather in the outdoors – giving practical reality to the concept of living close to nature for a few days. But the essence of the Green & Away site is its comfort: being close to nature doesn’t mean sackcloth and ashes. The camp has been the only occasion in which Resurgence members and friends can come together in the outdoors over a weekend, sip cool drinks, eat organic food and be stimulated by imaginative ideas.

Europe’s only tented conference centre celebrates 25 years
The Green & Away venue is also celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. It is still Europe’s only tented venue open for all types of organisations to use for conferences, meetings, staff training, member events, training and weddings. For the first time, Green & Away is also open as an eco campsite through the summer for families and individuals to camp and enjoy the beautiful surrounding Worcestershire and Herefordshire countryside.

The Resurgence camp will also feature music by Carolyn Hillyer and Nigel Shaw and Sika; and performances by Philip Ralph The One Eyed Man; and Indian Dance by Miti Desai.

It will be the last camp because next year Resurgence celebrates its 50th anniversary with a major three day event in Oxford – more details will be announced soon.

In the meantime, if you’d like to book one of the remaining spaces at this year’s Resurgence camp go to the Resurgence website.

Peter Lang is chair of the trustees of Green and Away and events manager for Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. He is a freelance environmental consultant and works with companies and organisations to reduce their environmental impact.

At the end of last month the Veterans Appeals Tribunal Decision on the Case Jean Mahoney vs. Australian Repatriation Commission was published.

The result was a win for the appellant, setting aside of the earlier Australian government decision not to grant a pension to the widow of a veteran who worked among the ruins of Hiroshima and later died from metastatic colon cancer.

I was the expert witness in this case and persuaded the Australian Tribunal (in an expert report and with oral cross examination by telephone, Brisbane to Riga) that the radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was not applicable to the kind of internal exposure to radioactive particles which her late husband, George Mahoney will have received.

I was bought into this case by Dr David Douglas who had been also retained as an expert by the widow, and with whom I have worked on another successful appeal in the past. Dr Douglas also gave evidence, and largely supported the arguments relating to internal exposures.

The particular argument I advanced is an extremely important one in internal radiological protection, one at the core of the arguments of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), and it was opposed by an expert from the Australian National Radiological Protection Board (ARPANSA) who argued the model of the ICRP.

A trial of two risk models

So this case was, in effect, a trial of the two risk models, that of the ECRR and that of the ICRP. It was decided by the judgement in favour of the ECRR.

The appellant’s late husband, George Mahoney, was stationed in Japan between 5th March 1946 and 23rd April 1955 as a member of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF). He died on 7th July 1990 from metastatic colon cancer.

Mrs Mahoney applied for (and was refused) a pension on the grounds that the death was caused by her husband’s exposure to residual radiation at Hiroshima, where he worked. The original refusal basis was (like all the British Test Veteran refusals) that his dose was too low to cause cancer.

This statement was based on the ICRP radiation risk model which holds that a ‘dose’ to the organ concerned of upwards of 1000mSv is necessary to cause a 50% increased risk of colon cancer. The ICRP analysis is based on the cancer yield of the External Acute gamma radiation ‘dose’ to individuals in the famous ‘Life Span Study’ the LSS.

So (if the LSS is a true reflection of the cancer yield) the whole colon, every cell in the colon, and every cell in the body of the exposed individual will have had to receive 1,000mSv for the person the develop colon cancer.

But the problem with this approach is that cancer does not start in the ‘whole organ’. It starts in one cell, or perhaps in a small group of cells, so the dose necessary to cause the genetic damage leading to cancer has only to be large enough in one small part of the colon.

Such a dose could be easily delivered from a Uranium particle for example, inhaled and ingested from the contaminated dust in the ruins of Hiroshima. We know that there were such particles because my colleague (and ECRR scientist) Prof. Shoji Sawada measured anomalous Uranium residues from the famous ‘black rain’ in Hiroshima in 1983. This is the key point.

The approach of the Australian Commission in deciding these issues is to see if they fit within a ‘statement of principles’ (SoP). Clause 6 of the relevant SoP states that for the Pension to be awarded for malignant colon cancer:

[the applicant must have] received a cumulative equivalent dose of at least 100mSv of ionising radiation to the colorectum at least five years before the clinical onset of malignant neoplasm …

Cumulative equivalent dose is defined in Clause (9) of the SoP to mean: “The total dose of ionising radiation received by the particular organ or tissue … “.

Hold it there: ‘or tissue’

The case pivoted on these two words, “or tissue”. Of course, ECRR would be happy if this interpretation were applied, it is the key to the entire risk model issue. And the Tribunal seized on this and used it as its basis for finding for the appellant.

It agreed that the veteran could have inhaled or ingested radioactive particles from the dust in the rubble of the destroyed city and that these could have lodged in the colonic surface tissue. They refer to my oral evidence:

Dr Busby: “It’s the dose to the single cell where the tumour develops that’s important … so we are talking about tissue, we are not talking about whole organ … and of course the dose to that from a uranium particle that’s been trapped in the colonic epithelium, because it’s only the epithelium that we should be concerned about, this is on the surface of the inside of the colon, those are the cells that replicate and those are the ones that develop cancer.

“The cancer never develops on other parts of the colon, from the muscular part of the colon or the outer part of the colon. You rarely get cancers there, almost never.”

The Tribunal: “The applicant is right. The wording of factor 6(1) does not require that the whole of the colorectum be exposed to the requisite level of radiation.

“Nor does it suggest on its face that exposure of parts of the organ – especially those parts of the organ that are vulnerable to ionising radiation – is only problematic if the exposure is averaged across the whole organ, including parts that were not exposed and which might not be vulnerable to the effects of ionising radiation) and the average level exceeds the requisite level … “

And to make no mistake:

“As Dr Busby pointed out in his evidence, the risk of cancer only arises when certain cells within the colorectum are exposed to ionising radiation.

“It would be odd if the Repatriation Medical Authority intended that radiation be assessed across the whole organ including parts of the organ that were known not to be vulnerable to the development of cancer as a result of radiation exposure when vulnerable but localised areas might have been exposed to an excessive dose.”

Also on trial – Hiroshima’s ‘black rain’

The Tribunal also accepted that Hiroshima was contaminated by the ‘black rain’: “Dr Busby produced a 1983 study which showed that areas to the north-west of the hypocentre of the blast experienced ‘black rain’ shortly after the bomb was detonated.

“Black rain is a phenomenon that occurs following an atomic blast when large amounts of material are taken up into the atmosphere. The material falls to earth in the course of a downpour which inevitably follows the blast. Dr Busby said that the ‘black rain’ contained radioactive materials including nanoparticles of enriched uranium.”

The Defence (ARPANSA) argument based on ICRP was discounted, the ICRP risk model was set aside for internal exposures of this sort, and the case was won by the widow.

This is the second Uranium particle colon cancer veteran case in which I have given evidence and which has been won; the earlier one was the Stewart Dyson Coroner jury case in 2009 where I mobilised all the same arguments and persuaded the jury that the cancer that killed Dyson, a Lance Corporal with the Royal Pioneer Corps, was caused by exposure to Uranium particles in Iraq.

Interestingly, the Secretary of State for Defence (SSD) who had been informed of this decision under Rule 43 of the Coroner Act wrote back to the West Midlands coroner Robin Balmain and disputed the decision. But, Mr Balmain wrote back:

“It is not a debate, the jury found what it found and I am bound by Rule 43 to communicate this to you. Later, when Dysons’s widow went to use the coroner inquest jury decision to claim a pension, it was refused by the SSD.”

I also gave evidence in 2012 in Los Angeles on a case against Boeing involving colon cancer in a woman, Debra Dawson, who developed colon cancer following exposure to uranium particles near the Santa Susana nuclear site (as did her husband).

For some reason the case was unexpectedly abandoned by the attorney that had commissioned me. These are big dogs. Maybe they made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

But for UK bomb test veterans, it’s another story

There is a most interesting aspect to all this. And that is the difference between this Australian case and the treatment meted out to me in the UK Courts in relation to my expert evidence before the British nuclear test veterans Ionising Radiation Pensions appeals.

Here, in the Upper Tier appeal, the SSD attacked me on the basis that
(a) I was not an expert and
(b) even if I were, the fact that I am an activist (writing articles like this one, making videos) rules me out since that makes me ‘biased’ under English law.

I was in the witness box in the Royal Courts of Justice in June 2014 before Sir William Charles (the judge) for three days continuously being hammered by the SSD Queens Counsel.

My evidence before the Pensions Appeals Tribunals had been sidelined by the attorneys for the veterans (something I have earlier written about in The Ecologist and elsewhere). The judge was convinced and made a Direction that I could not be an expert in these issues in a British Tribunal.

By the way, this particular judge has been seriously criticised for bad judgment, for example in a thundering Guardian op-ed by Joshue Rozenberg. It turned out that he did not have the legal right to recommend any such thing, and the Direction is currently subject of a Judicial Review application.

Meanwhile, the successful appeal against the original decision on the veterans has been directed to a new hearing presided over by a High Court Judge, HH Judge McKenna, a woman, and head of the Upper Tier Tribunal. Busby is now the Representative (i.e. the attorney).

We all quake before the Majesty of the Law

I don’t think that this situation has ever arisen in the history of English Law. Here you have an expert who can persuade courts that there is a fatal error in the current assessment of radiation risk, of the evidence.

He gives evidence which causes four Pensions appeals cases cases to succeed before a judge, Hugh Stubbs. The evidence also persuades a coroner jury. And now the same evidence persuades the judge in the Australian Mahoney case.

In the 2013 combined 13-case hearing in London, following the removal of the commissioning attorneys Rosenblatts, this evidence is excluded by the new prosecution lawyers, Hogan Lovell, and is not considered.

The judge in the case, the same Hugh Stubbs, promptly dies before anyone can ask him to explain what is going on. But before he does so, Stubbs allows an appeal on the basis of Busby’s exclusion. The appeal is successful and the case is sent back for a new hearing.

But the expert (Busby) is now excluded from giving evidence by a new Judge, Sir William Charles. The expert (Busby) then becomes the representative (same as the lawyer), with the ability to cross examine Defence witnesses and refer to the original evidence (though the extent to which this is possible we wait to see).

Is there a precedent for an expert becoming a representative? I think not. What a circus! Anyway, you have to agree, not boring. Watch this space.

Dr Chris Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk and the author of Uranium and Health – The Health Effects of Exposure to Uranium and Uranium Weapons Fallout (Documents of the ECRR 2010 No 2, Brussels, 2010). For details and current CV see chrisbusbyexposed.org. For accounts of his work see greenaudit.org, llrc.org and nuclearjustice.org.

What will become of UK energy policy now that the Conservative Party holds all the levers?

The government has already given clear indications of its plans to pare back onshore wind in recent days.

Tomorrow, 24th June, is the turn of offshore wind, when energy secretary Amber Rudd gives one of her first keynote speeches at the Global Offshore Wind Conference.

Rudd has been described as ‘really green’ in the past, but that is unlikely to reassure the offshore wind industry. With the government apparently committed to nuclear and shale gas and oil, renewables companies are wondering if they still have a place at the table. Here’s how the policy landscape looks to us.

Damage onshore

The government’s first big energy decision was confirmed with the announcement that the renewables-obligation subsidy scheme would be closing next April 1, a year earlier than planned. Confidence in the renewables industry has been wrecked as a result, though it goes further than that: the companies supporting renewables are the big power companies. The move is arguably as much a move against them as anyone.

Relations with the Scottish government have been damaged, with Nicola Sturgeon and others describing the decision as “wrong-headed”, “perverse” and “downright outrageous”.

Scotland has backed onshore wind for more than a decade as a cheap and proven source of low-carbon electricity. According to industry body Scottish Renewables, the decision will cost Scotland alone up to £3bn in investment and put at risk many thousands of highly paid jobs.

The move will also hit consumer utility bills. Keith Anderson, chief operating officer of Scottish Power, has estimated it will cost consumers between £2bn-3bn in more expensive electricity generation. This will increase the risk of fuel poverty across the UK (which is much higher in Scotland than England).

Anxiety offshore

Even before the election, offshore wind was not a good place to be. The sector has seen many projects mothballed and a number of key players drop out altogether in the face of a subsidy regime that is insufficient.

Offshore is already now much smaller than originally envisaged. It remains an expensive option in the UK even compared to new nuclear, and although costs are falling, it is not being deployed on the scale necessary to reduce costs to the point that it is commercially viable. If the subsidies are now cut, it will become a dead duck.

Compare Denmark, where the industry is now seeing costs fall dramatically through learning by doing. While the industry has benefited from highly competitive support mechanisms, deployment has been greatly facilitated by having 20% local ownership of projects.

Shallower waters have helped too, but the UK could still learn from the Danish approach. Danish offshore wind costs are significantly less than the projected new nuclear build costs at Hinkley Point C in Somerset in the UK, the country’s first new nuclear plant since the 1990s.

Bright nuclear future?

The Tories have long backed new nuclear power as the panacea to combat the looming electricity crunch that is often talked about in energy circles. Yet new nuclear is proving so challenging across the world that delivering even one new station will be no easy task.

As Hinkley Point C has already illustrated, the financial costs of new nuclear are enormous, and construction overruns look inevitable. The government also faces an impending legal challenge by the Austrian government over the up to £25bn of state aid required to bring the project to fruition.

This could delay completion by up to four years. Meanwhile Greenpeace Energy, Germany’s largest energy cooperative, is suing the European Commission for allowing the state aid to go ahead. In sum, it might well be 2030 before we see the plant generating any new electricity for UK consumers – about seven years later than intended.

This is a big problem for Rudd. Hinkley Point was promising to generate up to 7% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2023, at a time when big coal-fired stations in Scotland and England are closing. New and significant investment in energy infrastructure is needed before 2020 but it is currently unclear where this new generating capacity is going to come from.

Fast-track fracking

David Cameron has also made clear the government’s commitment to shale gas and its desire to repeat the US revolution here. It promises new tax revenues, jobs and a more secure gas supply. Yet these benefits must be balanced against the need to protect land and water supplies and manage hostile public opinion.

One widely overlooked issue is the infrastructure, which will take time and money to build. Fracking in the US requires an oil price to be at least $60 per barrel to be economical, and in some areas up to $100. With Brent Crude in the new era of mid $60 per barrel, is fracking economically feasible? Evidence from the US suggests not.

Earlier this year the Commons Environmental Audit Committee questioned whether fracking was compatible with UK climate-change targets. With the fifth carbon budget due soon to set targets beyond 2027, this presents Rudd with another conundrum.

The UN climate change conference in Paris later this year may well prove a very challenging conversation for the government. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this central strand of the government’s new energy agenda has some serious credibility issues.

The big picture

Put this all together and the government’s emerging approach to wind looks very unwise. New nuclear looks a very costly and unreliable drain on the government’s budget, while fracking looks expensive, incompatible with emissions targets and probably uneconomic at current oil prices.

It remains to be seen if these technologies will yield any long-term and positive outcomes for the country.

If the government gets it wrong, the consumer could be saddled with soaring electricity and gas bills for years to come. If ever we needed some sign of reprieve for UK renewables, it is now.

Peter Strachan is Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management at Robert Gordon University.

Alex Russell is Head of Department of Management and Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Aberdeen Business School at Robert Gordon University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.