To the Editor:
The Northumberland News article 'Health Concerns Committee proud of its work' (April 25) does not clearly reflect the points I was making regarding application of the Precautionary Principle to human exposures to uranium in Port Hope and elsewhere.

The people of Port Hope and indeed, Canada, should have the benefit of the Precautionary Principle approach to regulating uranium exposures, the approach which the federal Minister of Health Tony Clement announced last week is being applied to the substance bisphenol A. Many people across Canada and other countries have been pressing this case for years.

The bisphenol A announcement is being heralded by many as an unusually strong, leadership position for the Canadian government to take on a toxic substance and the Minister is quoted as saying it is "better to be safe than sorry."

We agree, but ask why the hypocrisy with uranium, a Class 1 carcinogen according to the World Health Organization. When the public and Health Canada know there is no safe level of ionizing radiation exposure and that particle inhalation causes respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, why is Health Canada trying so hard to convince us that inhaled industrial uranium particles are "safe" for Port Hope residents and other Canadians in the unfortunate position of acting as human filters?

Clearly, this is not in the best interests of public health.

It is past time for the Canadian government to end its double standard and apply "better safe than sorry" thinking to federal regulation of uranium.

Faye More

Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee

Port Hope