Call for investigation into Chernobyl legacy at Highland renewable energy sites
Fears have emerged that groundworks for major renewable projects across the Highlands could be exposing radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster almost 40 years ago.
Campaign group Communities B4 Power Companies is demanding an urgent investigation after highlighting what it sees as “very serious health risks” and “potential legal repercussions” as a result of digging up areas of deep peat to install pylons and turbines.
The group has commissioned a report into potential Caesium-137 contamination of peatlands in the region by fallout from the devastating 1986 explosion in Ukraine, in what was then the Soviet Union. CB4PC warns that Cs-137 is “harmful to human beings and animals” and can be released into the atmosphere and waterways during excavation.
It points out that “large parts of the Highlands and Islands were subjected to some of the heaviest fallout from Chernobyl across the UK”, adding: “Our analysis shows that there is every reason to expect that this radioactive material remains beneath the surface of Highland peatland areas. Once exposed to air and rain it can become dangerous to health.”
The Chernobyl accident in April 1986 caused radiation to spread to many parts of Europe.
In the Highlands, the level of radioactivity in milk was monitored and a full review was carried out at Dounreay. The Dounreay director at the time said he was convinced a similar accident could not happen at the Caithness site.
CB4PC campaigners Lyndsey Ward and Denise Davis have set out their concerns in a letter to the Scottish Government and Highland Council. They say the report, running to more than 60 pages, will be finalised this weekend.
Beauly-based Mrs Ward said on Thursday: “If they’re not testing any of the ground [for fallout] then I think they need to stop. I think they have a duty of care.
“If it’s being dug up, it’s being exposed. It was quite toxic when it landed and it’s only at its half-life now, so it’s half as toxic as it was when it first landed – so it’s still active.”
Mrs Ward copied the letter into a post on the CB4PC Facebook page.
“It has been shared 200 times already and I only put it up last night [Wednesday],” she said. “People have said we’re scaremongering, but no – just tell us we’re safe and we’ll go through the normal planning protocols. But don’t just go blindly on and pretend it’s not there.
“It strikes terror in our hearts. They’re digging up the Flow Country, they’re putting wind farms all over deep peat... Who is liable?”
Mrs Ward added: “People have come on our page talking about cancer clusters in areas where there have been developments on deep peat. I can’t verify that.”
In her social media post, she added: “How ironic is it that a government so anti-nuclear because it’s ‘dangerous’ has potentially allowed the release of buried radioactive material into the atmosphere and waterways in their unbridled quest to be world leaders in ‘green’ energy?”
In its letter, the group says: “CB4PC has commissioned a report into the potential Caesium-137 contamination of peatlands in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland by radioactive fallout following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
“The half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years… Our analysis shows that there is every reason to expect that this radioactive material remains beneath the surface of Highland peatland areas. Once exposed to air and rain it can become dangerous to health.
“Cs-137 from Chernobyl fallout is not mentioned in scoping requests or opinions. Many such developments involve large excavations of peat (for example, to house wind turbine and pylon bases). Many such excavations are in potentially radioactive-contaminated areas.
“Having made the discoveries it has, CB4PC is very concerned about these omissions from EIAs [environmental impact assessments]… There are existing UK regulations to protect the environment and people from potential radioactive hazards.
“It is obvious that exposure of construction workers, residents, the environment, wildlife, watercourses and water supplies to Cs-137 could pose very serious health risks. There are potential legal repercussions.
“As a matter of urgency, current groundworks investigations by SSEN and many private developers are already under way for a range of projects. CB4PC considers that such works should be subjected to all required stringent radioactivity tests and monitoring.”
CB4PC points to the Skye, Spittal/Beauly and Beauly/Peterhead overhead line projects and the Western Isles HVDC link as posing “a major concern”.
The group says: “All of them, and many wind farms besides, will travel through or sit in deep peat, and will therefore encounter potential Cs-137 sites. There should be an immediate investigation into the safety of any peat disturbance along these routes before tower, pylon or moorland track/road construction commences.
“Self-evidently, the Scottish Government has a duty of care to the people of Scotland. Every day the Scottish Government is asked by its civil servants to determine large energy-related applications.
“You must not ignore the health and wellbeing of the rural population and the natural environment, no matter what targets are found in current policy.
“CB4PC seeks your prompt confirmation that you will cause an early investigation into this topic; that you will treat it seriously; and that you will now take urgent action to protect citizens and the environment in the Highlands and Islands from all potential and unnecessary radioactive exposure and consequent harm.”
The letter has been sent to Scotland’s health secretary, Neil Gray; Gillian Martin, acting cabinet secretary for net-zero and energy; and Jenni Minto, minister for public health and women’s health. It has also been forwarded to Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, in her capacity as MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, and to senior Highland Council officials.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Potential impacts on communities, nature and cultural heritage, including the cumulative effects of energy developments, are important considerations in the decision-making process.”
