Tackling radiation by press release

Unbelievable – Haringey Labour issued a press release attacking me for saying that the Litvinenko House should be cleaned of radiation.

Local neighbours are worried – and Haringey has done sweet you know what since I wrote to them way back months ago.

Apparently Nilgum Canver, a local Labour councillor, is not at all interested in getting the house situation sorted – only saying that Haringey won’t pay for it.

I’m not sure local people will exactly be pleased with a council that says it is not doing anything – not even getting a reading or survey on the levels of radiation – if the council has to pay. It’s the householder’s responsibility they say. Well – actually it’s Haringey’s responsibility. They have the keys. They are the environmental health authority in charge. Clean it – get is sorted – and then the cost if legitimately solely the householder – claim it from them.

But above all – don’t leave local people worried, living next to a house with plastic protective sheeting on it – and do nothing.

It is absolutely shameful that both the Government and Haringey want basically nothing more to do with this.

It is me who is chasing the Litvinenko lawyer to get the insurance or finance for the cleansing. It should be them! As one reporter said to me ‘The only thing Haringey have done is issue a press release’.

The lawyer said he was now awaiting instructions when I spoke to him yesterday – and that he would get back to me as soon as poss. But not thanks to Haringey Council and the Labour councillors.

0 thoughts on “Tackling radiation by press release”

Which one is the press release attacking you? The only one I can find is this one http://www.haringey.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=83662 which doesn’t mention you at all.You will be relieved to learn, I’m sure, that it turns out the council didn’t leave local people worried. According to the press release, they made a point of going round to the neighbours to explain that there was no danger. And to make doubly sure, at they end of the press statement they make the same reassurance again.And since there is currently no danger, it’s only a category 2 hazard, which according to the act means not only do they not have a duty to take emergency remedial action, they don’t even have the right.I have to say, I find it depressing that education standards have fallen so far in this country under Labour that people need to be told. Basic radioactivity used to be GCSE/O’level physics, and any schoolkid should know that alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper or a few centimetres of air, and cannot even penetrate the layer of dead cells on the surface of the skin. It is only a danger if actually eaten or inhaled.I wouldn’t recommend living there until it has been checked, and you’d want to wash your hands very thoroughly before preparing food if you visit, but Chernobyll it isn’t. In fact, it’s quite likely that there wasn’t any significant amount there in the first place, and that what there was will nearly all be gone by now.I’d really like to hope that helps to reassure people, but being too much of a cynic by now I don’t expect it will.

I interpreted the Haringey press release differently, A2.It read to me as the council finally and belatedly doing something, presumably in response to the lobbying by Lynne Featherstone, the press coverage and so on and so forth.The council also seems to take a very optimistic view of how well its attempts at reassurance have gone down. All that I have heard is about people being very, very angry at the council for not keeping them informed properly.

Interesting article on the BBC website about it, where they seem to suggest it was in response to Mr Berezovsky’s refusal to answer the phone. He say’s he isn’t paying, and they ought to charge it to the Russian government. (Who I suspect will say the same thing.)But there does seem to be a conflict here between the council saying they told people it wasn’t dangerous and local people saying they haven’t been kept informed. Were they told or not? Because if the council can be shown to be lying, and that it didn’t actually speak to the neighbours, that’s a very serious matter.On the other hand, if it is simply that the neighbours have been told but for reasons of their own have chosen not to believe it, then the council can clearly not be blamed for that and I’d applaud their patience. If they’re referring instead to being kept informed on legal progress, presumably the reason they hadn’t heard of any was that none had been made. Likewise, less a criticism of the council than of Mr Berezovsky.So can we be clear on this? Are they talking about the legal situation or the radioactivity situation? Is the claim that they weren’t told, or that they were told but decided not to believe it? And if so, are the council to blame for them not believing it, and how should it have been explained to them instead?Hypothetically, if fans of Derek Acorah believed a neighbouring house formerly occupied by witches was haunted by evil spirits, and their worry absolutely genuine, could the council be forced to pay for the exorcism?And that question is not merely sarcasm. People really do believe such things, and seem to be increasingly anti-technology and ignorant of science. What should the authority complained to do in such circumstances? Play along?It’s an interesting question in political ethics.

A2 on 27th Apr 2007 at 9:53 pm said:

Which one is the press release attacking you? The only one I can find is this one http://www.haringey.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=83662 which doesn’t mention you at all.You will be relieved to learn, I’m sure, that it turns out the council didn’t leave local people worried. According to the press release, they made a point of going round to the neighbours to explain that there was no danger. And to make doubly sure, at they end of the press statement they make the same reassurance again.And since there is currently no danger, it’s only a category 2 hazard, which according to the act means not only do they not have a duty to take emergency remedial action, they don’t even have the right.I have to say, I find it depressing that education standards have fallen so far in this country under Labour that people need to be told. Basic radioactivity used to be GCSE/O’level physics, and any schoolkid should know that alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper or a few centimetres of air, and cannot even penetrate the layer of dead cells on the surface of the skin. It is only a danger if actually eaten or inhaled.I wouldn’t recommend living there until it has been checked, and you’d want to wash your hands very thoroughly before preparing food if you visit, but Chernobyll it isn’t. In fact, it’s quite likely that there wasn’t any significant amount there in the first place, and that what there was will nearly all be gone by now.I’d really like to hope that helps to reassure people, but being too much of a cynic by now I don’t expect it will.
Anonymous on 27th Apr 2007 at 10:25 pm said:

I interpreted the Haringey press release differently, A2.It read to me as the council finally and belatedly doing something, presumably in response to the lobbying by Lynne Featherstone, the press coverage and so on and so forth.The council also seems to take a very optimistic view of how well its attempts at reassurance have gone down. All that I have heard is about people being very, very angry at the council for not keeping them informed properly.
a2 on 28th Apr 2007 at 1:59 pm said:

Interesting article on the BBC website about it, where they seem to suggest it was in response to Mr Berezovsky’s refusal to answer the phone. He say’s he isn’t paying, and they ought to charge it to the Russian government. (Who I suspect will say the same thing.)But there does seem to be a conflict here between the council saying they told people it wasn’t dangerous and local people saying they haven’t been kept informed. Were they told or not? Because if the council can be shown to be lying, and that it didn’t actually speak to the neighbours, that’s a very serious matter.On the other hand, if it is simply that the neighbours have been told but for reasons of their own have chosen not to believe it, then the council can clearly not be blamed for that and I’d applaud their patience. If they’re referring instead to being kept informed on legal progress, presumably the reason they hadn’t heard of any was that none had been made. Likewise, less a criticism of the council than of Mr Berezovsky.So can we be clear on this? Are they talking about the legal situation or the radioactivity situation? Is the claim that they weren’t told, or that they were told but decided not to believe it? And if so, are the council to blame for them not believing it, and how should it have been explained to them instead?Hypothetically, if fans of Derek Acorah believed a neighbouring house formerly occupied by witches was haunted by evil spirits, and their worry absolutely genuine, could the council be forced to pay for the exorcism?And that question is not merely sarcasm. People really do believe such things, and seem to be increasingly anti-technology and ignorant of science. What should the authority complained to do in such circumstances? Play along?It’s an interesting question in political ethics.

Share this:

0 thoughts on “Tackling radiation by press release”