Last updated on March 1, 2013
A German report (summary) on cancer incidence seems to indicate that there is a higher frequency of cancer cases, mainly leukaemia in children, around nuclear power plants in Germany. The report was written at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Germany and based on two articles [1, 2].
The report was quickly embraced by the Swedish movement against nuclear power (SNF, Schlaug) and has also created a few headlines in Swedish newspapers (AB, HN). These newspaper articles claim that people living in the vicinity of Swedish nuclear power plants are worried by this report. Lars Barregård at the Centre for Medical Enviromental Sciences wants to investigate the incidence of leukaemia around Ringhals nuclear power plant. However, he says to HN: “…the radiation levels are very low and should not be able cause an increase in cancer frequency, though a study can be good to lessen the worries“. (translated from Swedish)
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) however does not consider it important to perform another study in Sweden as such studies have already been conducted with consistent negative results. A study in 1995 found no increase in numbers of cases of leukaemia. Also the number of cases of child leukaemia has been more or less constant at around 60 cases per year over the past 30 years, a period of time which includes the gradual phase-in of nuclear power in Sweden. SSM states that further epidemiological studies trying to blame cancer on nuclear power are not needed. Instead, there is a need of a larger knowledge base and more studies that tries to find the underlying reason for child leukaemia in general [6].
Still this leaves us with the German report. Does it give us due cause to worry? Not really, because in the conclusion of the report, the authors state:
…the present status of radiobiologic and epidemiologic knowledge does not allow the conclusion that the ionising radiation emitted by German [nuclear power plants] during normal operation is the cause.
What this means is that in order for nuclear plants to have caused these cancers, there must be some completely unknown effect in play; some kind of cause that science does not know anything about yet.
They further note that…
This study can not conclusively clarify whether confounders, selection or randomness play a role in the distance trend observed.
…and…
…these estimates are rather inconclusive because they are based on a very small number of cases
This means that they have not been able to rule out that other factors may explain the results, factors such as: carcirogens unrelated to the nuclear plants, errors in the study, or pure chance due to the amount of data being much to small.
Reading further we find that they have not measured the level of radioactivity around the plants or even include any kind of estimate of this:
This study is not able to state which biological risk factors could explain this relationship. Exposure to ionising radiation was neither measured nor modelled
One amusing interpretation of this would be that closeness itself, and not radiation, is a cancer causing agent. That is to say being 100 meters from a non-leaking plant would be more dangerous than being 200 meters from a wrecked one, because distance is what they have looked at, not radiation.
This is perhaps not odd concidering that radiation is not significantly or even measurably higher around these plants. The report concludes (again) that radiation cannot be a factor in this study on account of the additional exposure from nuclear powerplants being staggeringly small.
Annual exposure in Germany to the natural radiation background is approximately 1.4 mSv and the annual average exposure through medical examinations is approximately 1.8 mSv. Compared to these values, the exposure to ionising radiation in the vicinity of German NPPs is lower by a factor of 1,000 to 100,000. In the light of these facts, and based on the present status of scientific knowledge, the result of our study cannot be explained radiobiologically.
A far more serious thing to be remarked is that the second article notes that the study goes against findings of other studies made previously [2]:
….this observation is not consistent with most international studies, unexpected given the observed levels of radiation, and remains unexplained. We cannot exclude the possibility that this effect is the result of uncontrolled confounding or pure chance.
Looking at French studies [4,5], similar to the German one, we see that they indeed could not find any significant relation between cancer incidence and absorbed dose or closeness to a nuclear power plant.
Further reading reveals that they have not been able to process data considering children moving around prior to the cancer notice, nor the importance of lifestyle or whether the time the children spend in their homes is of relevance.
All of this summed up leaves us with a report that in effect states: “We think there might be slightly more cases of child cancer around some nuclear power plants, but we don’t really know why. And in order for the nuclear plants to be the actual cause, instead of something else, 60 years of radiobiological science must have completely missed something here”.
This notwithstanding the Swedish self-proclaimed enviromental movement beats the big drum and claims that it would be “irresponsable to concider constructing new nuclear power plants before it is clear whether children that live around existing plants suffer from conditions like leukaemia more often than the general public” (translated from [3]).
At Nuclear Power Yes Please we find this kind of alarmism to be just as irresponsible. We do not oppose performing epidemiological studies on nuclear power plants because science, openness of information and continuous review is one of the pillars that support our confidence in nuclear power. If anything we would welcome an exhaustive, well conducted study that settles the matter once and for all so we can either go happily about our lives, or get to work on a solution should one be needed.
But to spread fear of nuclear power among the general public without a solid scientific reason is reprehensible, especially with a report that even by its own words state that the results are vague, inconclusive and goes against most previously made scientific studies.
In light of the movement bringing this up just as there are huge political shifts in the view on Swedish nuclear power, possibly lifting the three decade old ban on building new nuclear power plants, we at Nuclear Power Yes Please are left to wonder what the real cause of the alarmism is. Why is the movement against nuclear power bringing this up now? Is it a genuine worry about public health, or is it a desperate attempt by the movement to try to justify their anti-nuclear stance? If it is the latter, we cannot express enough our outrage at such reckless abuse of science in order to try to make a political point.
1: Peter Kaatsch, Claudia Spix, Renate Schulze-Rath, Sven Schmiedel and Maria Blettner. Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants.
2: Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003. Claudia Spix, Sven Schmiedel, Peter Kaatsch, Renate Schulze-Rath and Maria Blettner.
3: http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/natur-och-miljo/aktuellt/?news=7104
4: M.L. White-Koning, D. He’mon and D. Laurier et al.. Incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear sites in France, 1990–1998.
5: A.-S. Evrard, D. He’mon and A. Morin et al., Childhood leukaemia incidence around French nuclear installations using geographic zoning based on gaseous discharge dose estimates.
News articles:
Tysk forskarrapport som borde oroa
Blog entries:
Kärnkraft, barncancer och sannolikhetskalkyler
Ett (o)sannolikt ställningstagande av Centern
Barnleukemi, kärnkraft och Maud Olofsson
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
[…] En grupp studerande har läst den tyska rapporten noga. Ett sammandrag av innehållet och dess felaktigheter kan läsas via deras hemsida: […]
[…] And when I looked at the statements, at least one old friend popped up: the German study on child cancers around nuclear power plants. You know… the one where the researchers themselves thought the result was odd because it went against what was known from other studies, and that they have no clue why they got their result, only that it was not radiation. We wrote about that before. […]
[…] Helen Caldicott started by warning about the consequences of the coming increase in the world’s population. After having been involved in organising an entire symposium on population growth I can only agree. (My next blog will be about the symposium.) Then she made a frontal attack on nuclear energy as part of the energy system. She condemned the new investment that is now coming and advanced that emissions from current nuclear power generation in normal operation increased the risk of cancer but that this was being ignored. One was given the idea that all of France would be affected by cancer since they have a great deal of nuclear power generation there. She cited studies that had been done in Germany to support her assertions. The audience was quite quiet and I cannot give an opinion on this since I have not seen the evidence. (I have just got this link) […]
[…] är kort och gott fel, fel, fel, fel, fel, fel och […]
Taking precautions in the light of evidence that appears to show harm is not “irresponsible.” You are backward. We first should discover whether things are safe *before* implementing them, not use the human population and our children as guinea pigs by implementing things we don’t know for sure are safe and then wait for people to get sick. You corporate industry apologists make people sick, looks like literally.
I’m not sure I follow you Joe. How am I “apologizing” for a “corporate industry” by reading a scientific report that says that nuclear powerplants couldn’t possibly, not theoretically, nor practically be the cause of cancer in children?
And how am I “apologizing” for a “corporate industry” by criticizing those that make claims that are in direct contradiction of what the report says?
Further more… how can you claim that precautions to examine that the plants are safe have not been implemented? Emissions regulations, safety regulations and monitoring authorities are in place. To this date, the only harmfull effects that has been proven by any civilian nuclear power plant in the world is Chernobyl, because that was run in opposite of all the regulations that we have in place.
Can you please explain your post a bit further Joe?
/Michael
Japan?!
Your entire post was refuting semantics and nothing more “Micheal”. It IS irresponsible to implement potentially SEVERELY HARMFUL energy solutions without 100% CERTAINTY that people will not be harmed. Nuclear power is not an option for just one person, country, state… It affects everybody on the planet.
Tell me one single power source that has a “100% CERTAINTY” that noone will get harmed.
– From China we are getting reports how “Green” energy is causing an eco-disaster.
– Solar power (photovoltiacs) uses the same kind of rare earth metals, of which China supplies 95% of the world’s needs.
– Solar power in general uses for instance 8000% more bauxite per kWh than nuclear. And what can bauxite do? Hungary knows…
– The world’s largest dam disaster killed 160 000 people.
– Fossil fuels and other pollutant-emitting power sources kill 2 000 000 people per year.
The “100% certainty” demand is nonsense because that is a demand you don’t put on anything else around you. You just hush those risks up and pretend it’s not there, even though in the short time it took me to write this comment along, 10 people died from fossil fuels in the world. Fukushima I has so far not killed anyone.
Do the math…
I think that what people are trying to get at is that there are long-term effects of radiation on human DNA. It is necessary to step away from nuclear physics and take a look at human physiology, the biological effects of radiation and the implications of these effects on multiple generations. Cancer takes longer than three months to manifest, while people who die from a dam disaster simply die. These drowned victims do not live to pass on genetic mutations to their children and subsequent generations.
Suggesting that there are safe levels of radiation exposure implies that there is no diversity in the human genome. Just as some people can run faster than others, genetic diversity includes variability within the enzymes responsible for repairing DNA lesions. These lesions are caused from all types of mutagenic substances (including man-made and background radiation). There is a direct association between the rate of DNA repair and the development of cancer. In addition, an increase in the rate of damage also increases the likelihood of cancers and gene mutations.
The lack of clarity in pinpointing the exact cause of a cancer is not helped by the latent period of carcinogenisis. When the genes regulating cell division are damaged, the cell does not immediately begin dividing uncontrollably. This hibernation period, which can last anywhere from five to sixty years, is how the nuclear industry is able to discount most incidences of cancer in adult employees and populations as a whole. However, it cannot be denied that it only takes one mutated cell to cause cancer, and even low doses of radiation are cable of producing this type of damage. In addition, the older segment of the population, immuno-depressed individuals and children are far more susceptible to the effects of radiation than healthy adults.
So when safety levels are “established” by the nuclear industry, what they are really declaring is that it is within their right to impose diseases, cancers and other cross-generational effects on segments of the population. In other words, as in war, there are acceptable levels of loss. Most people become alarmed by the fact that they don’t know whether they are in one group or the other.
Decisions that effect the human race should not lay in the hands of the few. This has been proven throughout history.Here are a few resources that might help readers along the way:- The National Research Council’s “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation”, Nadezhda Ryabokon
– R.I. Goncharova’s study entitled “Transgenerational Accumulation of Radiation Damage in Small Mammals Chronically Exposed to Chernobyl Fallout”
– The Russian collection of studies released by the New York Academy of Sciences entitled “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.” This study will only make sense once you understand how pervasive and mutagenic the effects of radiation are.The study I find very interesting involves the 22 generations of small mammals (which, by the way, have a higher tolerance to radiation than humans) in the Chernobyl fallout zone. This study noted permanently elevated levels of chromosomal aberrations and embryonic death even while radiation levels decreased. From the study, I quote: “Furthermore, gravid females were captured, and their offspring, born and grown up under contamination-free laboratory conditions, showed the same enhanced level of chromosome aberrations.”Radiation-induced genetic abnormalities do not simply go away when the radiation does.If you really want to get out of your comfort zone, the highly unsubstantiated and completely unprovable effects of the American use of depleted uranium on Iraqi populations can be seen in this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPUjay-rbgI&NR=1While I’m sure this journalist’s report is highly suspect in your opinion, I happen to know a man who died after his involvement with the research and development phase of these DU weapons. His involvement did not include exposure to the fine, airborn DU powder these Iraqi citizens were inhaling. Before he died of cancer, he filed a lawsuit against the US military and won. Why isn’t there a comprehensive study on the effects of DU on these populations? It seems that every side has its politics.
I’m not trying to promote one type of death over another, but I would like some consideration for the larger societal impacts of long-term genetic damage. It is true that large population studies are difficult to substantiate because there are so many contributing factors to cancer and diseases. However, low levels of ionizing radiation cannot be discounted either.
@8e0f013a9b6bfe2b01f5a66c2eacacc3:disqus : I’m not trying to promote one type of death over another
No, you’re just trying to fling dirt on nuclear power according to well known FUD tactics.
With phrases like “So when safety levels are “established” by the nuclear industry, what they are really declaring is that it is within their right to impose diseases, cancers and other cross-generational effects on segments of the population.” you can dispense with the pretty talk and just cut to the chase, because you have already revealed what you are after. As if it wasn’t already perfectly clear that you are trying to paint the nuclear industry as callous spreaders of disease and death, the statement also contains blatant error of fact: it is not the nuclear industry that establishes safety norms and regulations: it is the authorities of each respective country.
Regarding Yablokov et al’s report we can quickly conclude that it’s bogus. Suspicions arose realy when they launched this rather expensive-to-read report with a heavy attack in IAEA, claiming “a coverup”. After that it just got sillier. In short, what they did is to attribute any and all increase in unhealth statistics in – even very mildly affected – fallout areas after 1986 to Chernobyl. Even a layman can see right through that fraud.
I see I just got an email from you so I’ll answer that…
I came here looking for some answers, not petulance. You need to understand that your site will receive visitors who do not conform to your expectations — but are still looking for information. Many people fear nuclear technology for logical reasons. Fear does not void basic physiological facts. It is those facts that create fear. Fear is a very valid response when a person feels threatened.
So what I hear you saying is that it’s not the nuclear industry who sets the acceptable levels of radiation exposure and you don’t like the Yablokov material. So delete that stuff. This was not the core of my argument. In fact, delete the section on DU in Fallujah too because that’s NOT a study, it’s reporting. Also, discount my friend because he’s not a study; this was just a personal experience and so his death doesn’t count or matter.
I think that it can get really easy to dismiss people’s views when you know nothing about them. I don’t know you Michael. The only thing I have to go on is that you’re a computer programmer who has a serious interest in nuclear energy. I do not believe there is a conspiracy or “in-crowd” that promotes nuclear industry for some dark scary purpose. It essentially comes down to a large group of people who love physics and desire to apply that knowledge to solve societies problems. I do believe you are in that group.As for myself, I’m not someone who has read the news in California and suddenly decided I’m in danger from radioactive strawberries. I was in Japan when the earthquakes, tsunamis and meltdowns happened. I remained there because of the reassurances issued by TEPCO and the Japanese government. I understand that one of your colleagues is also there. How is he feeling about TEPCO’s handling of information that effects public health? How does he view the attempted rise in permissible radiation exposure in children? (Mattias can jump in here)My presence in Japan when all this unfolded does not make me a nuclear physicist, but it affected my life and my young son’s life. It is not a theoretical argument to me and it is very real to millions of others. It does not make me hysterical, but motivated to learn — and learn quickly.What I observed was that TEPCO prioritized the control of information so that initial public reactions would be muted. As a result, many people have been (and still are) exposed to much higher levels of radiation than they would have been if TEPCO had just bit the bullet. It took weeks and weeks for them to release relevant information. This generates a huge amount of distrust and skepticism from those who might be nuclear supporters. In fact, many people who used to be supporters of nuclear energy have reversed their stance because of responses like this.I’m sure that nuclear physics is amazing and cool and can been seen as the answer to the word’s energy needs, but the inherent faults in bureaucracy leads to excessive human exposure to radiation. If this was an isolated incident it would be different. However, standard response in emergency situations has been to deny the problem first. Hanford “Downwinders” were told to get phychological help for their “radiophobia” when spikes in infant mortality, cancers and other diseases began showing up.
I am motivated to hear your side. Tell me why my DNA is not in danger. Tell me why I shouldn’t have my son tested periodically for cancers over the next twenty to thirty years. Explain why children in Fukushima are not at any risk for leukemia or solid cancers. Tell me why the National Research Council’s study on the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation is invalid. What about DNA repair enzymes? There is a lot left to address in my post.I see you’re on the side to create good from your knowledge. I am not questioning your personal motivations, but I am asking you to look at human physiological response to radiation and the limits of the nuclear industry to address these dangers.I thank you for your civil response to my email and look forward to an improved exchange of information.
JenniferJ wrote:
Somehow, I think you came here looking for a soapbox.
And you need to understand that if you climb up on that soapbox to make your speech, you will receive rotten tomatoes from those who actually know better. Complaining about it, instead of confronting the challenges to what you have said, just makes your position look even weaker.
Yet your comments are strangely devoid of these … er … “physiological facts.” Have you ever considered that this fear could be the result of a well-orchestrated FUD campaign? You boldly assert that the nuclear industry is capable of anything. Are its opponents completely helpless?
So what I hear you saying is that you’ve backed out of almost all of your dubious claims. Please explain to me again why anyone should continue to take you seriously?
Oh … I think that I have your number. I’m quite familiar with these “views.”
If you would drop the attitude and the pseudo-science baggage that you have brought with you here, then perhaps you could learn something. Learning begins with asking questions, not tossing around accusations. If you can’t understand that, then I can’t help you.
You can have him tested periodically for cancer. That’s probably not a bad idea, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Fukushima accident. Without knowing your family’s history of cancer risks, I’d say that he’s probably most at risk for developing melanoma in the next two decades. (That comes from exposure to the sun, by the way, not nuclear reactors.)
From what you have written, I can only conclude that you have not actually read the NRC’s report on the effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation.
Well, I won’t get any serious response here. This website is a soapbox, not an educational tool.
And I see my other response has been erased as well.
Nice guys.
Have fun.
Jennifer, I had a bad hiccup with the comments field yesterday when I wrote an answer to you. It seems to have wiped your comment somehow. This was completely unintentional and wiped out more than half an hour of work for me as well. I am pasting your comment here (it was saved in my email inbox). Post it again in your own name if you like.
EDIT: Oh… it’s back for some reason. I don’t know what’s happening at the moment… seems Disqus is acting up badly.
——————-
I came here looking for some answers, not petulance. You need to understand that your site will receive visitors who do not conform to your expectations — but are still looking for information. Many people fear nuclear technology for logical reasons. Fear does not void basic physiological facts. It is those facts that create fear. Fear is a very valid response when a person feels threatened.So what I hear you saying is that it’s not the nuclear industry who sets the acceptable levels of radiation exposure and you don’t like the Yablokov material. So delete that stuff. This was not the core of my argument. In fact, delete the section on DU in Fallujah too because that’s NOT a study, it’s reporting. Also, discount my friend because he’s not a study; this was just a personal experience and so his death doesn’t count or matter.
I think that it can get really easy to dismiss people’s views when you know nothing about them. I don’t know you Michael. The only thing I have to go on is that you’re a computer programmer who has a serious interest in nuclear energy. I do not believe there is a conspiracy or “in-crowd” that promotes nuclear industry for some dark scary purpose. It essentially comes down to a large group of people who love physics and desire to apply that knowledge to solve societies problems. I do believe you are in that group.As for myself, I’m not someone who has read the news in California and suddenly decided I’m in danger from radioactive strawberries. I was in Japan when the earthquakes, tsunamis and meltdowns happened. I remained there because of the reassurances issued by TEPCO and the Japanese government. I understand that one of your colleagues is also there. How is he feeling about TEPCO’s handling of information that effects public health? How does he view the attempted rise in permissible radiation exposure in children? (Mattias can jump in here)My presence in Japan when all this unfolded does not make me a nuclear physicist, but it affected my life and my young son’s life. It is not a theoretical argument to me and it is very real to millions of others. It does not make me hysterical, but motivated to learn — and learn quickly.What I observed was that TEPCO prioritized the control of information so that initial public reactions would be muted. As a result, many people have been (and still are) exposed to much higher levels of radiation than they would have been if TEPCO had just bit the bullet. It took weeks and weeks for them to release relevant information. This generates a huge amount of distrust and skepticism from those who might be nuclear supporters. In fact, many people who used to be supporters of nuclear energy have reversed their stance because of responses like this.I’m sure that nuclear physics is amazing and cool and can been seen as the answer to the word’s energy needs, but the inherent faults in bureaucracy leads to excessive human exposure to radiation. If this was an isolated incident it would be different. However, standard response in emergency situations has been to deny the problem first. Hanford “Downwinders” were told to get phychological help for their “radiophobia” when spikes in infant mortality, cancers and other diseases began showing up.
I am motivated to hear your side. Tell me why my DNA is not in danger. Tell me why I shouldn’t have my son tested periodically for cancers over the next twenty to thirty years. Explain why children in Fukushima are not at any risk for leukemia or solid cancers. Tell me why the National Research Council’s study on the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation is invalid. What about DNA repair enzymes? There is a lot left to address in my post.I see you’re on the side to create good from your knowledge. I am not questioning your personal motivations, but I am asking you to look at human physiological response to radiation and the limits of the nuclear industry to address these dangers.I thank you for your civil response to my email and look forward to an improved exchange of information.
Michael – it is amazing that someone can squeeze so much pseudo-scientific crap into one comment, as JenniferJ has managed to do.
Does Yablokov et al. count as a “report”? Have you read it? It’s more of an anti-scientific rant that rails against such things as those awful “Western scientific protocols.”
Hi Brian. Could you be more specific? My post is pretty clear that having a grasp of physiology is a prerequisite to understanding Yablokov’s collection of material.
No, your post is pretty clear that harboring an irrational bias is a prerequisite to “understanding” Yablokov’s collection of material.
This “collection of material” (and yes, I have a copy, in case you’re wondering) can best be described as a series of essays, written by a couple of dishonest people with an axe to grind, that contains very little real, verifiable science. It is long on anecdotes and lame challenges to modern scientific protocols, but is short on anything that can be called credible by any respectable scientist.
This “report” has not undergone any kind of review by the scientific community; the NYAS has publicly admitted this and has distanced itself from all of its contents (it even included a disclaimer on page vi of the book). When it comes to credible science as understood by modern researchers, this book might as well be a work of science fiction.
I realize that the data on the health effects following the Chernobyl accident are lamentably poor. Nevertheless, the UN scientists who have done the difficult work of following up to quantify the effects have done a remarkable job, given the circumstances. What’s more, they have had to deal with the many confounding factors that have resulted from the hopelessness experienced by the population at risk — depression, tobacco use, alcohol abuse, even drug use — all of which have a profound and well-documented effect on the health of not only the persons involved, but their offspring as well. Almost all of this hopelessness has resulted from the needless fear caused by incompetent governments and the meddling of various NGO’s with their own private agendas.
Yablokov et al., with their book full of dubious pseudo-science, are not doing anybody a favor. They are just making a bad situation even worse.