§ 21. Dr. Strossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on what evidence his estimate that there was no significant increase in the radioactive content of London's atmosphere during recent years was based.
§ Mr. BevinsThe estimate was based on measurements made in London periodically since 1947.
§ Dr. StrossIs the Parliamentary Secretary aware that hon. Members from both sides of the House who, as ordinary members of the Parliamentary and Scientific Association, went to the Chester Beatty Research Institute, were informed that the radioactive contamination of the atmosphere of London—measurements have been taken at Fulham for many years—is 10 times as high now as when the measurements first commenced, and was 300 times the normal during the great fog of 1952? In view of that, will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that was taken into account and whether he will check it for us, and would he not think that that is significant?
§ Mr. BevinsI have checked the statement that appeared in the hon. Member's pamphlet that radioactivity in London had increased 10 times. I am afraid that there must have been a misunderstanding when the hon. Member and other hon. Members visited the Institute, because I am assured that the increase in radioactivity since 1947 has been negligible. It is true that the measurements that are taken are very limited, and have been limited in the past, and the evidence is not conclusive in its present form. Nevertheless, I should like to refute the statement that there has been a very large increase in radioactivity.
§ Dr. StrossWill the Parliamentary Secretary check that point with the Chester Beatty Research Institute, where I checked it, and make certain that the facts given to those of us who were present were as I have quoted? If he finds them confirmed, it may be he will find it is because measurements have been taken there for 25 years.
§ Mr. BevinsI have checked with the Institute through my noble Friend. The Institute denies that the statement was made, and says that, if such a statement was made, there has been a misunderstanding on one side or the other.