No C 356/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a revision of the multiannual 
research and training programme for the European Atomic Energy Community in the field 
of radiation protection (1985-1989) (!) 
(87/C 356/02) 
On 12 August 1987, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Atomic Energy Community on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 November 1987, in the light 
of Mr Preben Nielsens's report. 
At its 250th plenary session (meeting of 18 November 1987), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion: 
1. The Committee issued an Opinion on the current 
programme in November 1983 (*). The general and 
specific comments contained in that Opinion remain 
broadly valid. 
2. The Council and Commission have already acted 
on some of the Committee's recommendations; for 
example: 
— wide cooperation with the USA, Canada and Japan 
in the field of radiation protection; the ESC reiter­
ates its call for closer cooperation with the Eastern 
Bloc nations in the field of radiation protection, 
— the extension of the responsibilities of the Advisory 
Committee on safety, hygiene and health protection 
at work to include health protection against the 
danger arising from ionizing radiations, on which 
the Committee was recently consulted (3). 
3. Reference should also be made to the Conference 
on Health and Safety in the nuclear era which was held 
in Luxembourg in early October 1987, whose aim was 
to devise ways and means of providing the public, 
through the media, with all relevant information on the 
potential risks arising from ionizing radiation from all 
sources. 
4. The proposed revision has been dictated by the 
Chernobyl nuclear disaster. 10 million ECU are to be 
granted for the ten new research areas which have been 
proposed by the Commission in the light of this nuclear 
accident. 
5. In the light of the above, the proposed revision 
can only but be supported; the Council should continue 
to act on the Committee's recommendations contained 
in its Opinion of 1983, and take account of the com­
ments set out below. 6. 10 million ECU are to be set aside for the research 
fields to be added to the 1985-1989 programme. 
Although it might be questioned whether this is 
adequate, confidence can be derived from the statement 
of the Management and Coordination Advisory Com­
mittee Radiation Protection that this amount will suf­
fice for research into radiation protection up to 1989. 
7. The reduction in the total budget from 94 million 
ECU, as initially proposed by the Commission, to 
58 million ECU, as agreed by Council for the execution 
of the original 1985-1989 programme, is to be deplored. 
8. This important rduction was agreed without con­
sulting the Economic and Social Committee despite the 
fact that it could have jeopardized the entire programme 
proposed by the Commission. 
9. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster has helped to 
highlight the need to spend more on research in the 
field of radiation protection. 
10. Sufficient funds must be set aside as from now 
to ensure effective radiation protection research in the 
Community. Otherwise, competence will be impaired. 
11. Reference should also be made to the Commit­
tee's recommendation, contained in its 1983 Opinion (4) 
that funds (5 % of the appropriation) should be earmar­
ked for training research workers. 
12. Priority should be given to research into the 
effects of low-dose radiation and therefore previous 
Committee recommendations, contained in earlier 
Opinions should be noted. For instance, it is vital to 
ascertain the consequences of radioactive substances 
incorporated in the food chain (5). 
13. The Commission's references to insignificant 
radiation is a cause for concern. There is a need for 
more research into background radiation. 
(') OJ No C 302, 12. 11. 1987, p. 4. 
(2) (Opinion November 1983) OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1984. 
(3) (Opinion September 1987) OJ No C 319, 30. 11. 1987. (4) (Opinion November 1983) OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1984, p. 12 
(para. 3.9). 
(5) (Opinion November 1983) OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1984 (para. 
3.2) and (Opinion of 13 May 1987) OJ No C 180, 8. 7. 1987 
(para. 2.13). 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/5 
14. Chernobyl has shown that the Member States 
are completely unprepared for coping with a crisis. It 
is extremely important that the Commission should 
address the problem of crisis management in detail, 
even though a large part of the work has to be carried 
out locally. Crisis management covers a host of prob­
lems — what food is safe to eat, which groups are 
particularly exposed (site workers, firemen, police and 
medical services) or at risk (children), evacuation plans, 
preventive medicine (iodine etc.). 
15. Crisis management should also include the train­
ing of these site workers and all help organizations 
referred to above. 
16. There is a need to inform the general public in 
a scientific and comprehensible manner about radiation 
issues. The social partners and consumer interests 
should be involved as widely as possible in consultation on research programmes and in the advance planning 
of crisis-management. 
17. Emphasis should once again be given to the 
suggestions and recommendations contained in three of 
the recent Committee Opinions on 'a draft proposal 
for a Council Decision on a Community system of rapid 
exchange of information in cases of unusually high 
levels of radioactivity or of a nuclear accident'^), on 
'a draft proposal for a Council Regulation laying down 
maximum permitted radioactivity levels for agricultural 
products and drinking water' (*) and on 'the <~r»n«»-
quences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident' (3). conse-
1987, (!) (Opinion of 25 February 1987) OJ No C 105, 21. 4. 
p. 9. 
(2) (Opinion of 13 May 1987) OJ No C 180, 8. 7. 1987, p. 20 
and (Opinion of 2 July 1987) OJ No G 232, 31. 8. 1987. 
(3) (Opinion of 1 July 1987) OJ No C 232, 31. 8. 1987, p. 40. 
Done at Brussels, 18 November 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 85/196/EEC concerning 
a multiannual research and development programme of the European Economic Community 
in the field of basic technological research and the application of new technologies (BRITE) 
(1985 to 1988)(*) 
(87/C 356/03) 
On 12 August 1987, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee under Article 130 Q of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 November 1987 in the light 
of Mr de Normann's report. 
At its 250th plenary session (meeting of 18 November 1987) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted unanimously the following Opinion: 
1. The BRITE programme provides the needed 
impetus to European cooperation in industrial research. 
(') OJ No C 238, 4. 9. 1987, p. 2. 2. The proposal to amend the original Council 
Decision can be generally supported. 
3. It is right and proper as the proposed amendment 
would have it, that: