asked the Minister for Energy if, in view of the confusion that existed and still exists in this country following the accident at the nuclear plant in Chernobyl and taking account of the much greater risk to this country in the event of a similar accident at a nuclear plant in Britain, he will issue clear instructions to the people on each of the following points: (1) the level of radiation in the atmosphere above which adults should stay indoors; (2) the level of radiation in the atmosphere above which children should stay indoors; (3) the level of radiation above which adults should stop drinking water and if that level also applies to children; (4) the level of radiation above which adults should stop drinking milk and if that level also applies to children; (5) the level of radiation at which the Government would decide to issue iodine tablets and the arrangements, if any, which have been made for the issue of these; (6) the level of radiation in the atmosphere at which the Government would decide to evacuate an area and the arrangements, if any, which have been made for such an evacuation; (7) the number of people in the emergency services who have been trained to deal with such a disaster; the level to which they have been trained; and if he is satisfied with this situation.

The Nuclear Energy Board have advised me that, should a nuclear accident occur which would have significant radiological consequences for this country, then it might be necessary to take action of a kind which was not necessary following the accident at Chernobyl.

In such an event the advice of the board would have as its basis the relevant standards and recommendations of the various competent international bodies in the field of radiological protection such as the International Commission for Radiological Protection and the European Community. Broadly speaking there are two levels of dose at which counter measures should be introduced. These levels are not precise but are ranges of projected dose based on local monitoring. Should the projected dose for the duration of the accident which, if averaged over a year would exceed five millisieverts/(mSv), sheltering might be recommended together with the distribution of iodine. Should the projected dose exceed 50m Sv then evacuation would be considered. The precise point at which the two main counter measures would be executed would depend on local conditions.

If emergency procedures were being put in hand children and pregnant women would be given preference and priority.

I understand that 3,500 Civil Defence wardens are particularly trained in the use of field monitoring instruments for high level radiation and in wartime operations such as the evacuation of contaminated areas. Consideration is being given to adapting this training to other types of emergencies such as serious contamination from a nuclear reactor accident.

I am also having all other relevant matters coming within the area of the Deputy's question comprehensively examined by the relevant Departments and agencies with a view to maximising the effectiveness of our preparations for disasters of this kind. I must emphasise, however, that the causes of any such disasters and the determinants of their nature and intensity are not within the control of this State.

Emergency planning must only be considered as a secondary line of defence. The primary protection of the public lies in good engineering design and good plant safety procedures. The emphasis must be on full and proper monitoring of nuclear installations and the prevention of nuclear accidents. This is why the Government have emphasised the need for an independent nuclear inspection force, and are pursuing this matter vigorously.

Will the Minister inform the House of the results of the studies he has undertaken? Is the Minister aware that it was impossible for the NEB to give atmospheric radiation levels for areas other than Dublin and Valentia because they were the only places where samples were taken? Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern about the fact that the NEB had adopted 1,000 becquerels per litre as the maximum allowable level for milk while the European Commission had adopted a figure of 500 becquerels per litre? Is the Minister aware of the serious concern of biological scientists about the effects on the health of the population of a buildup of radioactivity in the food chain as evidenced by a study carried out by Norman Lansdell of Columbia River in the US where what was termed as an insignificant amount of radioactivity in the water led to a level of radioactivity in plant that was 2,000 times greater, a level in fish that was 15,000 times greater and a level in ducks that was 40,000 times greater than the level in the water? Are any studies on the concentration of radioactivity in the food chain being carried out here and, if not, will the Minister ensure that they are carried out?

I should like to assure the Deputy that I will make as much information as possible available to the public. The concern he has expressed was expressed in no uncertain manner during the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl incident. I have had discussions with the Nuclear Energy Board and reviews are taking place within my Department as to the effectiveness of the whole operation. Later, in reply to other questions, I will be dealing with the staffing of the board and the resources available to them. I should like to inform the Deputy that we have to distinguish between the level of radioactivity and the amount of the dose. The latter is very important and the Deputy should keep that in mind. I am satisfied from the monitoring that took place in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident that the necessary safety procedures were invoked by the Nuclear Energy Board. As the Minister responsible I was quite satisfied with the measures taken.

My questions were very specific. I can understand if the Minister does not have all the information available to reply to them but it is important that we should get answers to questions addressed to the Minister. I would like if the House was given replies to those questions some time in the future. Will the Minister inform the House of the efficiency of the methods and equipment used here for testing the levels of radiation in the air, the water, milk and food as compared with that used in other countries? How often are these sampled to monitor radiation in the environment under normal circumstances? Is the Minister aware of the comment of a former chairman of the NEB to the effect that random samples should be taken on a daily basis? Will the Minister provide the NEB with the resources to do so?

I do not wish to anticipate the reply to another question which deals with staffing and the allocation to the board. If the Deputy is concerned about specific points — for example, in relation to the efficiency of the instruments being used here vis-à-vis those in operation in other countries — I am not in a position to clarify them now but I was satisfied with the level of monitoring. Monitoring is an ongoing process and is carried out on a regular basis irrespective of disasters or incidents such as the Chernobyl incident. I am satisfied from the monitoring that no danger exists in relation to radiation here.