Cancer risk from nuclear reactors raised again

Press Release 22 jan 2004

2004 has started with the red flag of danger being raised.  As in previous years, increasing evidence is coming to the fore  showing potential health risks associated with nuclear power stations.

Over the last decade, nuclear power has come under increasing fire from concerned scientists who are studying the health impacts of nuclear reactors on the surrounding communities.  Strontium-90, a byproduct of uranium fission, is one of the pollutants emitted into the air by nuclear reactors. If inhaled or ingested, it collects in bones and tissue and increases the risks of cancer and leukemia, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Nuclear experts and the federal government in the USA say strontium-90 levels should be dropping because above-ground atomic bomb tests stopped decades ago, below-ground tests and nuclear weapons production halted at least 12 years ago and nuclear fuels reprocessing ceased in the late 1970s.

However, the latest research, published in The Science of the Total Environment January 2004 again highlights the seriousness of the issue.  The Radiation and Public Health Project in New York claim that in areas surrounding nuclear reactors, children have higher concentrations of strontium 90 than is areas where there are no nuclear reactors.   Further research is underway to substantiate claims that this exposure may mean that more children in the area have cancer.

Such horrific possibilities are not news to the nuclear industry.

An epidemiologic study published in 1997 reported no significant rise in childhood cancer rates around West German nuclear power plants. The conclusions of this study were extensively used by politicians and lobbyists as proof of no increased cancer risk around nuclear power plants. A reanalysis of the data, however, reveals a statistically significant increase of childhood cancers (all malignancies) when the evaluation is restricted to commercial power reactors, the vicinities closest to the plants, and children of the youngest age group (0-4 years).

Again in England, near Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, a study was initiated. In February 2001 a report of cancer mortality was commissioned following local concern about the health impact of incinerating contaminated waste at Bradwell. 
The hypothesis to be tested was that radioactivity in silt would be migrating onto the land and that cancer mortality would show an association with areas where radioactivity is most concentrated.

The results showed that:
• There seems to be a clear excess of breast cancer mortality in wards surrounding the Blackwater Estuary.
• All malignancies in women shows a pattern similar to the breast cancer
• There is an elevated risk of prostate cancer mortality across the area, though it is less clearly associated with the Blackwater than is the case for breast cancer
 
Here in South Africa, environmental watchdog, Earthlife Africa Cape Town responded:  "There is increasing evidence from Germany, UK and USA that communities that live around nuclear reactors are at risk - their children could be at risk from leukaemia.  What about in South Africa". Said Nosiphiwo Msithweni, Earthlife Africa spokesperson.

Eskom's response seems to be that there is no health impact therefore there is no need to do any studies. According to the PBMR EIR report, the monitoring, under the control and inspection of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), is based on international standards and is undertaken to demonstrate that discharges of radioactivity from Koeberg result in no significant health risk to members of the public, staff or the environment.  However, the report also states that this monitoring however, "excludes health monitoring of the public."    "This appears to be a cover up" says Msithweni "Obviously, if you don’t look for evidence, you wont find any, so then it is easy to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and claim that there is no problem".

Earthlife Africa feels strongly about the importance of transparency around nuclear health issues.  Let Eskom tell communities the real risks, let them get independent studies and then let communities decide if they want Koeberg to continue.

The UCT's Public Health Department is also concerned and have embarked on a study to investigate whether there is any evidence of increased health risk. 

Communities living near nuclear facilities such as Vaalputs and Pelindaba have also expressed concern.  We are working with them to help them to start their own health monitoring studies, said Msithweni.