Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates. People are becoming more aware that certain environmental factors may pose a potential health risk, from telecommunications masts right through to the issue we are discussing today. The delegates spoke about how they have mapped the various facilities. The proposed reprocessing plants, as well as the Sellafield site, are all on the west coast of Britain and thus in close proximity to the most populated part of this island. As such, do they pose a greater risk than the power plants themselves, or does the RPII rank them in that way?

In the case of the construction of new plants, are various risk scenarios tested and potential compensation factored into the cost of those plants? That is something to consider in a context where we might face a serious threat to our food industry.

The impact on the food industry creates real costs beyond the boundaries. Fukushima and Chernobyl are cases in point. The chart is very interesting because it shows the impact of radon gases, a matter with which we have to deal. How do we compare with our British counterparts who are closer to the various nuclear facilities in terms of the artificial impacts? Does Dr. McGarry have that information to hand? Dr. McGarry has listed the artificial down as low as 1% or less than that. Is that elevated by location? I presume it would vary across the land mass but there might be a greater impact on locations closer to the facilities. Where is the cosmetic generated? Presumably "terrestrial" refers to telecommunications masts. Am I right?