Radiation in Babil: science vs. public perception
Shafaq News/ Radiation hazards, a byproduct of military conflict and the misuse of radioactive materials have been a global concern, and Iraq is no exception. Decades of warfare, combined with reported radioactive contamination incidents, have left lasting impacts on the environment and public health. Recently, the focus on Al-Dawlab in Babil province has brought these issues to the forefront.
Roots of Radiation Contamination
Radiation contamination in Iraq dates back to intense military conflicts and technological mismanagement. During the 1980s and 1990s, marked by the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War, the use of radioactive materials and munitions surged. In conflict-affected areas, radiation levels were estimated to have risen by up to 30% above natural baselines.
One notable incident contributing to contamination was the rupture of nuclear capsules, mixed with scrap metal from former military sites. Sabah Al-Husseini, Director-General of the Radiation Prevention Center, stated that "of 59 contaminated sites, decontamination efforts have reduced the number to 10 active hazard zones."
Government assessments painted a grim picture. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed that radiation levels in southern Iraq were up to 150% higher than normal. Iraqi officials linked radiation exposure to a rise in health issues, including cancer, with 39,000 cancer cases recorded, predominantly involving breast, lung, and colon cancers.
However, residents often contest the severity of the contamination. For instance, Abu Ayat Al-Rifai, a resident of Al-Dawlab, noted that despite government claims of contamination, "no one feels anything; no one has fallen ill, and all children are healthy."
Prolonged Exposure to Radiation
Prolonged exposure to even low levels of radiation can have severe long-term health consequences, such as cancers, genetic mutations, and chronic illnesses. In regions like Al-Dawlab, where radiation persists, residents face elevated risks, particularly children and those with weakened immune systems. Studies show radiation exposure can increase the likelihood of leukemia, thyroid disorders, and various cancers.
Moreover, radiation can cause birth defects in future generations by altering genetic material. This effect may take years to manifest, raising concerns for families in contaminated areas. Environmental experts warn that prolonged exposure to low radiation doses significantly increases the risk of long-term health complications.
Though long-term effects are still under study, early indications suggest an uptick in cancer cases and other health issues. The full impact can only be understood through long-term epidemiological studies that track affected populations over time.
Assessment and Transparency
Accurate radiation measurement is vital for understanding its risks. Instruments like cesium detectors and Geiger counters are used to assess radiation levels, particularly isotopes like cesium-137, which persist in the environment for decades. The IAEA's standards suggest that levels above 50 Bq/kg warrant further investigation.
In Al-Dawlab, authorities tested soil, plants, animals, and even human samples, but residents raised concerns over the lack of transparency. "Why are the test results being withheld? If there is a real danger, why has no one been affected?" they questioned. This lack of disclosure has fueled skepticism and widened the gap between scientific assessments and public perception.
Variations in sampling techniques, environmental dispersion, and instrument calibration can lead to discrepancies in reported data. As an environmental expert noted, "While instruments provide objective measurements, the true impact on human health can only be assessed through long-term epidemiological studies."
Progress and Public Discontent
The Iraqi government responded to radiation contamination by evacuating residents from hazardous areas and assuring the public that decontamination efforts were underway. However, these actions have been met with controversy.
Residents expressed frustration over the withholding of test results and the absence of clear answers. One community leader questioned, "If there is a genuine risk, why are we not informed of the real numbers? Without transparency, how can we trust the authorities?"
Many argue that if no real danger exists, families should be allowed to return to their homes or be compensated and relocated if risks are confirmed.
Some officials have promised independent investigations and the public disclosure of environmental and health test results to restore trust. However, experts emphasize that more needs to be done.
According to them, the government’s response remains reactive rather than proactive, with a pressing need for long-term monitoring, independent oversight, and public engagement.
