Write to Owen Jenkins objecting to nuclear new build

Owen Jenkins
Office for Nuclear Development
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Bay 128
1, Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET

Response to ‘Justification’ Consultation

I write to say that I do not agree that the building of new nuclear power stations such as an EPR at Hinkley Point is justified under the terms of the European Union law regarding health detriments from new practices which emit radiation. There is much evidence to show that there are significant health effects from the operation of nuclear plants such as the examples outlined below.

“Leukaemia incidence in Somerset with particular reference to Hinkley Point” Dr Cameron Bowie, Somerset Health Authority 1983, ’85, ’88. The three reports studied leukaemia incidence in West Somerset, finding a 24 percent excess in those aged under 24 years, suggesting a link to Hinkley Point.

“Breast cancer mortality and proximity to Hinkley Point nuclear power station 1995-98” Dr (now Professor) Chris Busby Green Audit 2000. Found an 89 percent excess of breast cancer deaths on Burnham-on-Sea north over a four year period. Follow up studies confirmed the excess.

“Parents Concerned about Hinkley survey, 2002” doorstep survey by volunteers analysed by Dr Chris Busby. 100% response from 30% of Burnham north population between 1996 and 2001 showed: leukaemia incidence 2.7 times the England & Wales average; breast cancer 98% above average; kidney cancer 4 times average; cervix cancer 5.5 times average. A Government committee wrote off the study saying wrongly it was a 30% response of a 100% population and therefore unrepresentative.

“Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear plants”, Kaatsch, 2008 International Journal of Cancer (KiKK report). A very large German Government study showed more than doubling of leukaemia in children living within 5 kilometres of nuclear power stations with an effect as far away as 50 kms. Created a public outcry and many pregnant women moved away from nuclear plants.

The difficulty with the conventional approach to radiation risk is that the model does not allow sufficiently for internalised radioactive particles. The International Commission on Radiological Protection who advise on this, base their predictions on Hiroshima survivors but a single blast of radiation should be treated differently from long term exposure to inhaled particles. So experts predict low, statistically insignificant health effects. When these turn out to be higher than expected in epidemiological studies, they wrongly say it cannot be connected to the radiation. This is an unscientific approach, based on expected outcomes not on real outcomes.

The Committee Examining Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE, 2004) http://www.cerrie.org/
reported that radioactive ‘dose’ is now irrelevant, so radioactive discharges in millisieverts will not accurately predict whether individuals will be harmed. They also recommended that regulators should recognise that children are particularly vulnerable.