Nuclear Power – Unwanted and Unnecessary (Pt. 2)

This posting is a follow-on from the blog about the impacts of mining nuclear fuel (uranium) and is part two in a series highlighting other issues with nuclear power.  Please read part one if you have not already done so.

Radiation Waring Symbol

Cancer clusters around nuclear installations have always been the subject of great debate, however, they should not be ignored.  In early 2008, the very large Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants study in Germany reported increases in leukaemias and solid cancers among children living near all German nuclear power plants.

The study triggered debates in many countries as to the cause or causes of these increased cancers.

An accompanying article reported on the developments of the study, including the responses by German radiation agencies, and the results of epidemiological studies near UK and French nuclear installations.  The article outlined a possible explanation for the increased cancers: in essence, doses from environmental nuclear power plant emissions to embryos/foetuses in pregnant women near nuclear power plants may be larger than suspected, and haematopoietic tissues may be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/foetuses than in newborn babies.  The article concluded with recommendations for further research.

Sometimes background radiation is brought into the argument when discussing radiation resulting from nuclear power plants, however, this should not be the case because, as mentioned in Annex 6B of The Other Report On Chernobyl (TORCH) report by the Greens/EFA:

  • it invites the reader to infer that background radiation is “safe” when this is not the case (the former UK NRPB has calculated that an average UK background dose in a population of 55 million will result on average in about 6,000 to 7,000 future cancer deaths per year); and
  • comparisons with background are not used to justify the acceptability of industrial discharges of chemical toxins such as aflatoxin, ozone or dioxin that also occur naturally.

With respect to highly radioactive waste, there are various quotes for the length of time it remains dangerous, including:

Whichever set of figures is used, there is no denying highly radioactive waste remains dangerous for a very, very long time and the waste responsibility is passed to future generations.

David M. Davison


5 Responses to “Nuclear Power – Unwanted and Unnecessary (Pt. 2)”

  1. The Ecologist has published an article, “Why UK nuclear power plants may cause childhood cancer and leukaemia”, about cancer clusters:

    David M. Davison


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s