Experts debate which is more deadly - carbon dioxide or radiation

Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill says he will spend two minutes in a room full of carbon dioxide if George Monbiot does the same in a radioactive room. Who would be better off?
Jenny Percival
guardian.co.uk,
Friday August 08 2008 08:35 BST

Choose your poison. Arthur Scargill has offered to stand in a room full of carbon dioxide emissions for two minutes if environmental campaigner George Monbiot would do the same in a radioactive room.
The former general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers believes he would be less harmed than Monbiot. But is he right? Arthur Scargill
Dr John Emsley, a chemistry expert and science writer, agrees CO2 would be the better bet. "It's a nasty choice but at least in the CO2 room you wouldn't come to too much harm – it's not a toxic gas and we breath it in small doses all the time. Our own bodies even generate CO2. If there was a high level of CO2 you might pass out after 10 minutes because of a lack of oxygen but at least you'd live.
"Radiation on the other hand is much more sinister and, depending on the intensity and type, it could be deadly." George Monbiot
He cited the case of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, who died in November 2006 after ingesting high doses of polonium-210, a naturally occurring radioactive material that emits highly dangerous alpha particles. But even polonium-210 need not be fatal, as long as it is not consumed or inhaled.
Professor Neil Barnes, a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation, said Scargill's challenge was "spurious" because high levels of CO2 could kill in a few minutes while high levels of radiation would also kill, but over a longer period.
The "more sensible" question to ask was whether coal-burning power stations or radiation from nuclear power stations were more harmful to health.
"If you look overall at the detriments to human health, then beyond doubt, coal-burning power stations pose a much greater threat," said Barnes, the professor of respiratory medicine at St Barts and the London hospitals.
Carbon dioxide was only harmful in very high concentrations, he said, whereas other products of burning coal such as sulphur dioxide created the pollution most damaging to health.
Effects ranged from minor respiratory symptoms like coughs and colds to chronic lung diseases such as emphysema, and for asthmatics a higher risk of being admitted to hospital. The greatest health problem was an increased risk of heart disease, said Barnes, because pollutants inhaled through the lungs caused the blood to become stickier.
"Add to this all the people that have respiratory diseases as a result of working in the mines – and Arthur Scargill is well aware of this since he campaigned for compensation for those affected – and coal-burning is almost certainly more damaging to health than nuclear power production."
So Barnes would, reluctantly, join Monbiot in the radioactive room.
As its title suggests, the Health Protection Agency, an independent body charged with protecting the health and wellbeing of the nation, would not sanction admission to either room.
"It's a hypothetical experiment on an emotive issue and it would never get approval on ethical grounds," said a spokeswoman.