Why Starmer's nuclear power push raises cancer fears

Telegraph

4 days ago

In 1942, the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, which was processing uranium for the first atomic bomb, ran out of space for its radioactive waste and moved it to an open air storage site near Coldwater Creek, north of St Louis.
More than 80 years later, Harvard University has shown that communities living near the Creek, a tributary of the Missouri River, had an elevated risk of cancer.
The findings, released this week, showed a dose-response effect, with those living nearest to the water having a far higher chance of developing most cancers than those living farther away.
Researchers say it highlights the dangers from exposure to even small amounts of radiation over time, and warn governments must be cautious when building new nuclear sites near towns and villages.
'Our research indicates that the communities around North St. Louis appear to have had excess cancer from exposure to the contaminated Coldwater Creek,' said Professor Marc Weisskopf, an expert in environmental epidemiology and physiology.
'These findings may have broader implications—as countries think about increasing nuclear power and developing more nuclear weapons, the waste from these entities could have huge impacts on people's health, even at these lower levels of exposure.'
'Golden age of clean energy'
The warning comes at a time when the government is seeking to increase nuclear power in Britain, announcing £14.2 billion for a new nuclear plant at Sizewell in Suffolk, and £2.5 billion for a small nuclear reactor programme.
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary said nuclear power was crucial 'to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance.'
But for decades there have been fears that the radiation from power stations can cause cancer, with some evidence showing clusters of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma near Sellafield in Cumbria, and Dounreay, on the north coast of Scotland.
Nuclear plants have also been linked to increased cancer incidence in the US and Germany.
The public was first alerted to the possibility that nuclear plants could be causing cancer when an ITV documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, near Sellafield.
While less than one case should have been expected in such a small community, researchers found seven youngsters suffering from the condition.
Residents feared that radioactive discharges may be to blame and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) was set up to investigate.
Investigations by Comare did show that rates of two types of childhood leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, were significantly higher than expected, and researchers found a similar cluster at Thurso near Dounreay.
However researchers did not find raised rates in other villages near Sellafield and Dounreay leading them to think that something else was causing the rise, potentially local infections which are known to trigger cancer in some cases.
The investigators theorised that an influx of workers moving to Seascale and Thurso to work in the nuclear industry may have exposed local residents to new infections, sparking a rise in childhood cancer rates.
Viruses such as Epstein-Barr are thought to be linked to cancers such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
This week, Imperial College and the University of Bristol published new research showing no increased risk for youngsters living within around 15 miles of a British nuclear plant.
Researchers analysed cancer incidence data for nearly 50,000 cases of childhood leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, central nervous system tumours, and other solid tumours in children aged 0 to 14 years between 1995 and 2016.
They cross-referenced it against data for communities living near nuclear plants, including Sellafield and Dounreay but found no increase in cases compared to the national average.
Dr Bethan Davies, from Imperial's School of Public Health, said: 'For many years there have been public concerns about the potential health impacts of living near nuclear installations.
'Our analysis suggests that children living near these sites today are not at increased risk.
'As the UK government announces a multibillion-pound investment for new nuclear energy infrastructure, our findings should provide reassurance that the historical clusters of childhood cancers reported near sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are no longer evident.'
But the Coldwater Creek case shows the danger that can come from supposedly safe radioactive storage facilities. In that case, wind, rain and flooding are thought to have allowed radioactive material to leach into groundwater.
A clean up operation is ongoing which is not expected to be complete until 2038 and the US government has just expanded the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), so that those affected can claim medical expenses.
The UK Health Alliance on Climate Change also warns that there are health risks associated with living near and working in a nuclear plant, citing German research showing young children living within a few miles of a site are particularly vulnerable.
'Any proposed development of nuclear power as a source of energy must take into account potential risks to human health,' the alliance said in a position statement last month.
Imperial College warned it was important to continue to monitor health data at nuclear plants, but said its latest findings should reassure communities living close to reactors.
Professor Mireille Toledano, Mohn Chair in Population Child Health in Imperial's School of Public Health, said: 'These findings are both timely and important. As the UK and other countries expand their nuclear energy capacity, it's vital that public health remains a central consideration.
'It's reassuring that our study found that the historic case clusters have resolved, but it remains important we continue to monitor public health data around such sites across the UK for any emerging trends of concern.'