Terug naar Hoofdpagina brieven
The Observer, 1 June, 1990 Lockerbie fears over missing uranium by Robert McNeil Mystery surrounds the precise number of depleted uranium counterweights missing from the Lockerbie disaster Boeing 747, after police first told Edinburgh radiation experts that one-and- a-half were missing and then amended the figure to two. The issue has aroused serious concern because of fears that a missing half may have been burnt in the conflagration, creating conditions for a massive leak of radiation. Local authorities and a leading radation consultant are calling for the matter to be investigated. Dr Bob Wheaton, of Edinburgh Radiation Consultants, first wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Police last year and was told that one-and- a-half counterweights were missing. This aroused his concern, as an American phycicist, Dr Robert Parker, had claimed in Nature magazine of 22 December 1988 (the very week, ironically, of the disaster) that 'about 250.000 people, at worst, could be put at risk from the 1,000 lb of depleted uranium in a Boeing 747.' Dr Parker claimed that the civilian use of depleted uranium could be hazardous. 'Uranium, depleted or not, is chemically toxic,' he said. 'In aircraft, depleted uranium is only a hazard in the event of high-temperature fires that can arise after a crash. It is the release of airborne and respirable oxide particles from such fires that presents a hazard. Dr Wheaton, while keeping an open mind on Dr Parker's figures and conclusions, believes nonetheless that there could be a risk, particularly if half a counterweight had been destroyed in high- intensity flames. He wrote again to Dumfries and Galloway Police and received the following reply, dated 19 March, from Chief Constable George Esson: 'I must apologise for giving you inaccurate information in my letter of 1 November 1989. This was due to me being wrongly informed that 18.5 counterweights had been recovered when the correct figure is 18 counterweights.' Asked by Observer Scotland to clarify the situation, a Lockerbie police spokesman said: 'The chief constable initially was in receipt of misinfomation and that's why he put it out as 18.5 recovered. He then had a full look at the situation and discovered that the proper figure was two missing and 18 recovered.' Asked where the misinformation came from, the spokesman said he could only go by the correspondence with Dr Wheaton 'and that it was misinformation.' This weekend, Dr Wheaton said: 'We are interested in discovering whether or not these counterweights had been exposed to high temperatures, which is the crux of the matter. But when they discovered that we wanted to see the half they suddenly decided that there wasn't a half after all. I wouldn't say it was deliberate but it seems almost like a delaying tactic - I only got a letter back after months.' Dr Wheaton, who stesses that the missing counterweights were as likely buries as burned, also contacted Boeing in Seattle and they assured him that the Nasa-tested counterweights were completely safe. The Standing Conference of Local Authorities in the Forth Estuary, to which Dr Wheaton is consultant and which is concerned about aircraft movements in and out of Turnhouse, has urged him to continue his inquiries. BNF was unable to give a figure for the number of counterweights held at Preston when contacted yesterday. A spokesman added that the counterweights had been tangled up with metal and debris when they arrived. However, he cast strong doubts on the risk calculation by Parker and said he could not recall seeing signs of burning on the counterweights. Dr Wheaton accepts that radiation testing in the Lockerbie area after the disaster found no cause of alarm. However, he calims that the water sampling method used 'would be the one least likely to show up anything.' He said a better method would have been sediments sampling from the bottom of the same bodies of water that were tested. 'The uranium oxide created would be quite a dense material and if it did settle on to the water it would almost certainly drop straight to the bottom. This is the principle that Sellafield used for the discharge of uranium and plutonium into the Irish Sea. So we would expect a similar thing to happen in this case.' ================ END ====================================== |
.