Tag Archives: power

Show your face for a GM Free UK Updated for 2026





I believe in people power.

It’s a belief that rarely lets me down. An informed and motivated populace is one of our best defences defence against corporate lies, political corruption and media laziness.

And frankly doing things together is more effective and fun than trying to change the world all on your own!

I’ve seen people power work in my own career. My Behind the Label series for The Ecologist is a good example. Armed with the facts about all the toxic ingredients that get put into everyday products such as food and cosmetics, it gave consumers the confidence to make better choices.

It often provoked an indignant response from companies. But over the years, as the momentum grew and public calls for safer products got louder, many manufacturers began to take some of the worst chemicals out of their products.

And now, people power is just what we need

In the UK we need people power again if we are going to stop the juggernaut of GMOs.

The US experience is showing what people power can do in this regard. People who never really thought of themselves as ‘activists’ has been motivated to take a stand over issues like GM labelling.

Local groups have been formed, money raised, PR organised and a big noise made – often from somebody’s back room or kitchen table – on behalf of a better food future for all. When Vermont became the first US state to vote mandatory labelling of GMO products into law that was people power in action.

But in the UK public engagement with GMOs has slipped somewhat due, I believe, to a very effective PR campaigning by biotech companies to make people feel they are too stupid to join in a discussion that is best left to scientists.

As a result GM campaigning in the UK has become a scientific and academic ‘battle of the papers’ with each side claiming that the 250 references in their paper are better than the 250 references in the other side’s paper. It’s not exactly the stuff that fuels headline news.

Worse many of the pro-GM scientists aren’t scientists at all but simply corporate lobbyists who plot with politicians behind closed doors. They’re hired guns whose job is to shoot first and not ask any questions. Ever.

We need good scientific discourse. We need good scientists on our side to show up show the multiple holes in the pro-GM argument. But GM is not just a scientific issue and scientists by their very nature are not activists and academic papers are not campaigns.

Raising the volume

What we need is a Big Noise. We need public engagement and it can’t come soon enough.

GMOs have been with us for nearly 20 years. In the early 90s a very visible public and media campaign helped keep them out of our fields and off our plates.

Because of the way that the public discussion has petered out in the UK and in many parts of the EU, people could be forgiven for believing that we are ‘safe’ from GMOs. But the issue has never gone away.

In reality the GM debate has, for some time, been at a stand-off, with consumers and NGOs largely refusing to accept GM and corporations, politicians and regulators trying to push it into farming and food.

This stand-off has allowed the issue to slip beneath the public radar, leaving many unaware of the latest developments or how these might affect them.

But things are changing rapidly. The biggest change is that the EU coalition that has blocked planting of GM crops has broken up. It is likely that before the end of 2014 the European Parliament will allow Member States to make their own decisions on the planting of GM crops.

This may sound like a good idea, but it creates more problems than it solves. GMOs don’t respect geographical borders and yet there is no solid provision for what might happen if GM crops in one country cross-pollinate with those in another.

Likewise, guidelines for opting out are very narrow and even require Member States to seek the consent of biotech companies before opting out. For these and other reasons, oversight at EU level is considered crucial to maintain tight control over the planting of GM crops.

If this proposed change in legislation goes ahead, the UK will likely push ahead with planting without any post-marketing monitoring or co-existence measures (necessary to protect organic and non-GMO farmers) in place.

Declare yourself GM Free Me

Now is the time to speak out. Let’s not wait for the horror headlines to appear before we get ourselves organised.

The GM Free Me initiative is one way you can begin. It’s a visual petition. Not just another selfish selfie, the campaign ask is simple.

Upload a photo of yourself holding the printable GM Free Me card, or if your are so inclined the e-card for tablets and ipads, and join this lively ‘national portrait gallery’ of real people of all ages and backgrounds who are tired of politicians, regulators, pro-industry researchers and media pushing genetic engineering technology into our farming and food system and ignoring the concerns and opposition of average people.

Once your photo is uploaded it goes onto a map of the UK divided into political constituencies. The more of us in each area, the more power we have and the more pressure we can all bring to bear locally and nationally.

So why not get your family, friends and colleagues involved too. Then share it on social media (and send it to your MP – there’s a button for that onsite!) and encourage others to join in so we can really make a noise.

Does it take longer than posting yet another angry tweet about GM? Yes. But not much longer.

And by adding your face to the gallery you are showing that people power is alive and well and determined to stop the UK becoming a GM nation.

 


 

Pat Thomas is an author and campaigner, a former Editor of the Ecologist and Director of the Beyond GM / GM Free Me campaign.

 

 




384883

Three in every four nuclear power builds worldwide are running late Updated for 2026





As of this month, 49 of 66 reactors under construction around the world are running behind schedule, according to an updated analysis conducted by the authors of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014.

The study takes into account several delay announcements in recent weeks:

  • USA: two reactors, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2 and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 3;
  • South Korea: two reactors – Shin-Hanul-2 and Shin-Wolsong-2;
  • and Finland: Olkiluoto-3.

Little is known about the progress on four nuclear reactors in India. All the other reactor projects have been under way for less than two years, which makes it difficult to identify delays in the absence of full access to information.

The full and up to date list of reactors under construction and related delay details is available at World Reactor Delays.

The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR)

The study highlights the two EPR-design reactors currently under construction: Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 and France’s Flamanville-3. Both are running about $7 billion over their initial budgets and now projected to cost more than $11 billion.

EDF’s Flamanville reactor was due to be completed by 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion, but is now projected for completion in 2016 at a cost of €8.5 billion.

Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 reactor, the first EPR construction project, is likely to be a decade behind schedule upon delivery, with a projected completion date of 2018. Construction of the 1.6GW plant began in 2005 and was originally due for completion in 2009. Cost figures are similar to those for Flamanville.

Despite the severe problems with existing EPR projects, the French parastatal power company EDF is planning to build a twin-reactor 3.2GW plant in the UK at Hinkley C in Somerset.

The UK Government strongly supports the project and has agreed terms for a support package that may be worth as much as £100 billion over its lifetime. It includes both a guaranteed electricity price double current wholesale market levels (at £92.50 per megawatt hour) and a £10 billion construction finance guarantee.

Critics like Nikki Clark of the Stop Hinkley campaign group have denounced the UK’s choice of the EPR design as “insane” given the delays and cost overruns in France and Finland.

The support package for Hinkley C is under review by the European Commission as possible ‘illegal state aid’ and may never win approval. The reactors are not included in the study since construction has not proceeded beyond extensive groundworks.

Delays a key factor behind rising costs

Mycle Schneider, Paris-based international consultant on energy and nuclear policy and lead author of ‘The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014′ said:

“Delays in construction – some of them multi-year – are a key factor behind rising costs and the clear trend of the shrinking share of nuclear energy in the world’s power production, which declined steadily from a historic peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2013.

“That trend is likely to persist as costly construction delays continue to dog the relatively small number of new reactor projects around the globe.”

Contrary to what is often claimed in the United States by proponents of nuclear power, he added, “the reality is that other nations around the globe do not have a better track record when it comes to delivering nuclear reactor projects on time and on budget.”

The global picture

According to the study:

  • China – often cited in the US as an example of where nuclear power is being delivered on time and inexpensively – is actually experiencing construction delays at 20 of its 27 reactor projects.
  • Russia is seeing delays at nine out of nine reactor projects.
  • India is reporting delays at two out of six reactor projects, but little information is available about the on-time status of the other four.
  • South Korea is seeing delays at four out of five reactor projects.
  • The United States is reporting delays at all five new reactor projects now under construction.
  • Ukraine’s two reactors were commenced in 1986-1987, and grid connection is officially due in 2015-2016.
  • Five reactors in Pakistan (2), Slovakia (2) and Brazil (1) are also running behind schedule.
  • Finland – Olkiluoto EPR delayed by almost a decade (see above).
  • France – Flamanvile EPR four years behind schedule (see above).

Of these eight reactors have been listed as ‘under construction’ for more than 20 years, and another for 12 years.

With Belarus, a new country was added in the last year to the list of nations engaged in nuclear projects, while Taiwan has halted construction work at two units. Fourteen countries are currently building nuclear power plants.

The remaining 13 reactors all started construction in 2012 and after, making it hard to see how construction is advancing. They are also in countries with little open information on building progress.These 13 reactors comprise: Argentina (1), Belarus (2), China (7), South Korea (1), UAE (2).

“This is by no means any guarantee that these plants are factually on time, let alone on budget”, says Schneider.

Contruction delays – a feature of nuclear power for 40 years

“For the last 40 years, the US nuclear power industry has been plagued by construction delays and by cost overruns”, comments Peter Bradford, adjunct professor on Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Vermont Law School.

The former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and former chair of the New York and Maine state utility regulatory commissions, continued:

“Because nuclear power is already more expensive than alternative ways both of generating electricity and of fighting climate change, these delays and overruns further undermine nuclear power’s claim that special nuclear subsidies are an essential part of the world’s climate change strategy.”

 


 

Further information: http://bit.ly/worldreactordelays.

 

 




383087

The BBC, Friends of the Earth and nuclear power Updated for 2026





Last Wednesday (10th September), as a World Nuclear Association (WNA) conference commenced in London, the BBC Today programme announced that the campaign group Friends of the Earth (FOE) had made a “huge and controversial shift” away from their “in principle” opposition to nuclear power.

It was news to the group’s campaigns director, Craig Bennett, who had earlier been interviewed for the programme as he relates in his blog.

On Friday the Guardian carried a blog by the BBC’s widely respected environment analyst Roger Harrabin reiterating the view that FOE had made a “huge and controversial shift”, also claiming that the group is now “less strongly anti-nuclear” and “is locked in an internal battle”.

The analysis was way from accurate according to FOE – but the top-line message remembered by busy listeners and readers means damage will have been done – and at a critical time in terms of the impending EC nuclear state-aid and Hinkley C investment decisions, which have global implications.

What Friends of the Earth are really saying

FOE is saying, after refreshing their policy in 2013, that the high cost and long build-times of new nuclear reactors are currently more dominant concerns to them compared to nuclear accidents.

That concern reflects the vital fact that the £10s or even £100s of billions the Government is preparing to sink into nuclear power is money that will not go into the real answers – renewables and energy conservation. Worse, they will cause energy market distortions that will further undermine renewables.

So FOE’s shift is one of relative concern from one of the several core stand-alone reasons against nuclear power (ie radioactive waste management, cost, proliferation, terrorism, major accidents, routine discharges and more recently climate distraction) to another.

That’s fair enough given that the scale of emission reductions required to avoid dangerous global warming is increasing by the year and delays in cutting emissions due to poor energy investment is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.

It’s also important to realise that as a solution to climate change, nuclear power is currently a ‘bit player’ producing just 2.6% of global energy: 2,600 TWh/y out of a global final energy demand around 100,000 TWh/y.

Nor does it offer significant opportunities for growth. The WNA optimistically estimates a nuclear capacity of 400GW – 640 GW by 2035. Taking a figure of 540 GW, that would generate around 4,000 TWh/y in 2035 of a projected global energy demand of 140,000 TWh/y –  just 2.9%.

Nuclear would be hard pushed to ever supply beyond 5% of future energy demand unless fast reactors – the great hope of George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Baroness Worthington and some others – were ever proven at utility scale.

And that’s highly improbable, given the wasted billions invested in the technology, and decades of failure to deliver an economically viable solution. So nuclear power is hardly a crucial or key technology, as ministers keep arguing.

The other issues remain – and they are of critical importance

The increasing concern in the core issue of climate distraction does not mean that any other issues have materially reduced, the crumbling storage ponds etc at Sellafield are still a clear and present danger, probably more so year on year.

That’s not a softening of stance, as Harrabin’s whole article implies, rather its the opposite. Nuclear power is becoming an even more dangerous issue.

Indeed, considering the dawn of extreme asymmetric warfare (9/11), the rise of extremist groups (eg ISIS), dodgy foreign policy (2003 Iraq war, arms sales to Israel) and concerns about Iran’s nuclear power motives, I would suggest that two other core issues, terrorism and proliferation, are also increasing in danger.

Oddly and alarmingly such major security issues have not featured in most environmental, political or public debate. Yet, the UK is on the brink of being in the forefront of rescuing a dangerous, dodgy and discredited nuclear industry from an investment abyss and placing it centre-stage of a low-carbon energy global policy.

Hitachi is even considering moving its HQ from a contaminated Japan to a lucrative London. The Government is essentially promoting the spread of nuclear technology, materials and expertise around the world, where a few kilos of plutonium or U233 (from thorium reactors) can make a bomb that can change that world.

Future generations will not thank us for missing a fast-evaporating opportunity to bottle as much of the nuclear weapons genie as possible – by switching to safe, abundant and increasingly affordable renewables.

Neither is the decaying waste a diminishing issue. A site for a geological repository has still not been identified, nor a convincing containment technology. Waste from new reactors would be significantly hotter, radioactively and thermally, and may be left in on-site Interim Stores indefinitely by default.

A refreshed look at nuclear power is not a pleasant sight: it shows the dangers are increasing.

Closing existing reactors – when was that an FOE campaign?

Harrabin goes on to say, and make something out of, a change in FOE’s stance on closing existing nuclear reactors. I’m not sure what era Stephen Tindale was a FOE activist (apparently campaigning for existing stations to be closed down) but I never made any such calls in all the years I worked for FOE.

I was FOE Cymru’s specialist energy campaigner in Wales from about the mid 1990’s and then the main anti-nuclear campaigner (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) between about 2005-2010. We had a pragmatic attitude and focussed our limited energy and funding on more winnable campaigns.

So any shift regarding ‘closure calls’ would have been at least two decades ago and could not be portrayed as a recent shift or part of a refreshed ‘less strongly anti-nuclear’ stance.

And if FOE had made any significant ‘shift’ or change in policy on nuclear power (or any other campaign area) the proposed change would have had to be submitted as a written motion to the annual conference, won the Local Groups’ vote and received the agreement of the Board.

It would have presumably then been announced as a change in the organisation’s public material and press releases. It would not have been hidden to be ‘found’ by journalists digging around in consultants reports or reading way too much into comments and nuances in a live interview.

The experienced Harrabin says that the ‘shift in policy was signalled in a little-reported policy paper last year’. The link provided goes to a report written by the Tyndall Centre commissioned by FOE (with disclaimers) and is not FOE policy.

Surely such an experienced journalist would be aware that a externally-written commissioned report is different to a internally-produced policy paper

Is the BBC unbiased on nuclear power?

The article is replete with other outrageous twists. There is something alarming when any journalist writes an article like this. It is more alarming that the BBC environment analyst is doing this.

Perhaps it is not surprising given that two BBC Trust figureheads of this world-respected media organisation are paid advisers to EdF: acting chair Diane Coyle and ex Chair Lord Patten; moreover Coyle is married to the BBC’s technology correspondent.

Is it possible that the BBC Trust’s links to EdF have effects down the ranks of the organisation and permeate the minds of journalists without a word being spoken – a silent, almost subconscious influence?

The Trust can say all it likes about having “no control over editorial content” – but it does not need control. Trust members also adjudicate editorial complaints so one could question the time and effort in complaining about Harrabin’s article.

Regardless of any possible influence on any journalists it is remakable that BBC Trust members can receive money from such corporate interests – and even advise them on how to use the UK media to clinch one of the biggest multi-billion pound deals in British history.

Why won’t the BBC report on the real nuclear stories?

The Hinkley C deal, and others, would have long-term planning and subsidy implications, radioactive waste management issues extending into geological time, potentially irreversible proliferation, foreign policy, energy security and terrorism risk consequences, and yes, still the potential for major accidents.

There are numerous outstanding Assessment Findings regarding the Hinkley C design which, if not resolved before construction were to commence, could be set in concrete in what are globally unproven new reactor designs.

On the morning of the WNA’s conference in London the BBC should have reported relevant real issues such as AREVA’s credit-negative rating (reported on Reuters) or the month’s long safety shut-downs at EdF’s Heysham and Hartlepool nuclear reactors which could lead to capacity-crunches and Grid distortions this winter.

Drumming up stories which imply that one of the main anti-nuclear campaign organisations has made some big policy shift on the quiet is far below what the BBC and Britain was or should be about.

The BBC should refresh its policy on corporate links and the Government should re-evaluate the costs of a new-build nuclear programme. These include significant, perhaps incalcuable, national and global security risks for many future generations in the UK and globally.

The costs also include the extraordinary and counterproductive dis-investment already under way in harnessing safe, largely indigenous renewable energy resources potentially using British low-carbon and carbon-negative climate solutions: both the cheapest form of low carbon electricity, onshore wind, and that with the fastest declining cost, solar PV, are in the firing line for cuts.

In the meantime, FOE should be given the media space to set the record straight given the likely damage caused by Harrabin’s fault-ridden analysis.

 



Neil Crumpton is a writer, researcher and consultant on energy issues, and represents People-Against-Wylfa-B on the DECC-NGO nuclear Forum and the ONR stakeholder Forum. He was FOE’s energy specialist campaigner, 1994-2010.

 




384135

Bombs Ahoy! Why the UK is desperate for nuclear power Updated for 2026





The UK’s proposed support package for the Hinkley C nuclear power station in Somerset is gigantic. Estimates of its cost range up to £100 billion or so.

Of course it’s hard to put a precise figure on it, as the subsidies take so many forms, and many of the commitments represent a guarantee against unknown and unquantifiable eventualities. But to summarise they include:

  • a generous guaranteed purchase price for its electricity, at £92.50 per megawatt-hour – about double the current going rate – also inflation adjusted from now, and lasting for 35 years after it begins to produce power;
  • £10 billion of Treasury guarantees on its construction cost;
  • a guaranteed maximum exposure to the operator, EDF, on its waste management and decomissioning costs;
  • the limitation of EDF’s liabilities in the event of any major nuclear accident at €700 million, when nuclear accidents can impose costs in the $100s of billions;
  • a variety of pump priming exercises to lubricate the nuclear supply chain, and direct support to Sheffield Forgemasters, a manufacturer of nuclear reactor vessels;
  • a panoply of expenditures for nuclear R&D by way of research councils.

And all this just for a single 2.4GW power station that would generate just 20TWh of our 350TWh per year electricity usage.

On the face of it, it’s madness!

The government is busy hacking back at support for renewables such as onshore wind and solar, by a variety of means (from discrimination via the planning system to restrictive spending caps) – just as these technologies approach cost parity with fossil fuel generation.

The government claims, in its submissions to the EU, that the aims of its nuclear power subsidies are to decarbonise the UK’s electricity, while diversity and security of supply.

But just to look at decarbonisation, the electricity price support alone offered to Hinkley C is worth some €250 per tonne of CO2 – while the price of carbon under the EU’s Emissions Trading System is around €5.

What this tells us us that there are existing decarbonisation opportunities there for the taking at €5 per tonne of CO2 – so exactly why would anyone want to invest £100 billion of our money in decarbonising at a price 50 times higher?

The government’s insistence of pushing forward with nuclear power looks insane. But there is another explanation: that they actually have a rational motive – just one they’re keeping quiet about.

What else could it be?

My own considered view is that the UK’s civil nuclear programme is almost entirely motivated by the UK’s wish to maintain its status as a nuclear WMD state.

It is a simple fact that all the ‘permanent five’ members of the Un Security Council are nuclear WMD states: the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK. This status is not one that the UK is about to give up lightly.

But why is a civil nuclear programme so important to having a nuclear WMD programme? Here are some reasons:

  • to maintain nuclear WMD we need a substantial pool of nuclear physicists, engineers, University departments, professors, graduates, technicians, etc;
  • it would be very expensive to sustain this whole nuclear establishment purely for the sake of a WMD programme – far better to spread out the costs with a civil nuclear programme which ends up bearing most of the costs;
  • nuclear science and engineering would offer unattractive and insecure career prospects if tied exclusively to employment on nuclear WMD;
  • it’s important to be able to spread out the costs of the entire nuclear fuel cycle from uranium sourcing and enrichment through to disposal of wastes so that a nuclear WMD programme can piggy-back at low cost on a much larger civil nuclear programme.

The Burning Answer

Reading Keith Barnham’s excellent ‘The Burning Answer‘ I was pleased to find that he reached precisely the same view (see page 92). First, he documents how civil nuclear reactors were deliberately used to provide plutonium for military use right from the outset of nuclear power in the UK.

But now it’s no longer plutonium we need – we have more than enough of that, with our 100 tonne plutonium stockpile. It is, rather, a supply of tritium that’s needed. Produced as a by-product of operating nuclear power plants, it’s essential to maintain supplies as it decays away at about 5% per year.

Tritium is used as a secondary source of neutrons to ignite nuclear fission devices, so boosting the power of a conventional fission bomb by magnifying the early neutron flux and achieving a greater burnup of the uranium or plutonium before the whole assembly is blasted to smithereens.

Additionally tritium is a key ingredient of H-bombs which release colossal volumes of energy by the nuclear fusion of this unstable isotope of hydrogen.

The UK’s military also needs high-enriched uranium as fuel for both Trident and hunter-killer nuclear submarines. The former are the deployment platform for the UK’s nuclear missiles.

Currently, writes Barnham, the UK gets its high enriched uranium from the USA. But this may not always be the case – so it’s important for us to have our own capability to enrich uranium for civil reactor fuel, and then we can use the same equipment and / or engineering expertise to produce high-enriched uranium for nuclear submarines.

Nuclear power and nuclear WMD – two sides of one coin

So what are the implications for campaigners opposting Hinkley C and other new nuclear power plants? First it means that there is little point in trying to change the minds of key decision makers in the UK government and opposition parties about nuclear power.

They already know as well as you do that it’s a disastrous option for power generation. However they will continue to insist how utterly necessary it is for the UK to have nuclear power at more or less any cost, trotting out one absurd and unconvincing reason after another as they have been doing for years.

The same goes, incidentally, for nuclear power in the USA, China, Russia, France and other WMD countries. In all of them civil nuclear power provides the ‘nuclear sea’ in which the ‘WMD fish’ may swim.

However it is worth exposing politicians’ lies for what they are – and making it absolutely clear, on every possible occasion, that the only reason they really want nuclear power is to maintain the UK’s status as a nuclear WMD state.

After all, the fact they are so assiduous in concealing this truth shows it’s one that’s seriously damaging to the case they’re making.

While you’re about it, be sure to explain the nature of the relationship and how the government’s aim is a sneaky and dishonest one – to force the UK’s energy users to pay for the country’s WMD programme in our power bills.

Re-energising campaigns

It also means that the two main anti-nuclear campaigning factions – anti-nuclear power and anti-nuclear WMD – are really a single movement with a common aim. Without either one, the other will become significantly weaker, unviable, and ultimately die.

And this knowledge arms us with an important new argument against the so called ‘nuclear greens’ such as George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Bryony Worthington and Stephen Tindale. They may sincerely believe that nuclear power is the answer to climate change – however hard it may be to understand quite how they reached that counter-factual conclusion.

But point out to them that by supporting nuclear power they are actually backing nuclear weapons – and in the process a discredited, outdated, genocidal world order based on the capacity of nuclear WMD states to destroy the world – and their proposition rapidly gets a whole lot less sustainable.

The other thing we must do is to give our relentless support to renewable energy, which has emerged as nuclear power’s greatest and deadliest enemy as it progressively undermines its madhouse economics.

Every solar panel or wind turbine is a direct attack on nuclear power – and on the nuclear weapons it exists to support.

 



Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Keith Barnham is Emeritus Professor of Physics at Imperial College London, and author of The Burning Answer: a User’s Guide to the Solar Revolution, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 01373-463-822.

 




383136

Nuclear power stations cause childhood leukemia – and here’s the proof Updated for 2026





In March 2014, my article on increased rates of childhood leukemias near nuclear power plants (NPPs) was published in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity (JENR).

A previous post discussed the making of the article and its high readership: this post describes its content in layman’s terms.

Before we start, some background is necessary to grasp the new report’s significance. Many readers may be unaware that increased childhood leukemias near NPPs have been a contentious issue for several decades.

For example, it was a huge issue in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s leading to several TV programmes, Government Commissions, Government committees, a major international Conference, Government reports, at least two mammoth court cases and probably over a hundred scientific articles.

It was refuelled in 1990 by the publication of the famous Gardner report (Gardner et al, 1990) which found a very large increase (7 fold) in child leukemias near the infamous Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria.

Over 60 epidemiological studies confirm the link

The issue seems to have subsided in the UK, but it is still hotly debated in most other European countries, especially Germany.

The core issue is that, world-wide, over 60 epidemiological studies have examined cancer incidences in children near nuclear power plants (NPPs): most (>70%) indicate leukemia increases.

I can think of no other area of toxicology (eg asbestos, lead, smoking) with so many studies, and with such clear associations as those between NPPs and child leukemias.

Yet many nuclear Governments and the nuclear industry refute these findings and continue to resist their implications. It’s similar to the situations with cigarette smoking in the 1960s and with man-made global warming nowadays.

In early 2009, the debate was partly rekindled by the renowned KiKK study (Kaatsch et al, 2008) commissioned by the German Government which found a 60% increase in total cancers and 120% increase in leukemias among children under 5 yrs old living within 5 km of all German NPPs.

What is ‘statistically significant?

As a result of these surprising findings, governments in France, Switzerland and the UK hurriedly set up studies near their own NPPs. All found leukemia increases but because their numbers were small the increases lacked ‘statistical significance’. That is, you couldn’t be 95% sure the findings weren’t chance ones.

This does not mean there were no increases, and indeed if less strict statistical tests had been applied, the results would have been ‘statistically significant’.

But most people are easily bamboozled by statistics including scientists who should know better, and the strict 95% level tests were eagerly grasped by the governments wishing to avoid unwelcome findings. Indeed, many tests nowadays in this area use a 90% level.

In such situations, what you need to do is combine datasets in a meta-study to get larger numbers and thus reach higher levels of statistical significance.

Governments wouldn’t do it – so we did

The four governments refrained from doing this because they knew what the answer would be, viz, statistically significant increases near almost all NPPs in the four countries.

So Korblein and Fairlie helped them out by doing it for them (Korblein and Fairlie, 2012), and sure enough there were statistically significant increases near all the NPPs. Here are their findings:

Table: Studies of observed (O) and expected (E) leukemia cases within 5 km of NPPs.

[a] derived from data in Spycher et al. (2011).
[b] acute leukemia cases

This table reveals a highly statistically significant 37% increase in childhood leukemias within 5 km of almost all NPPs in the UK, Germany, France and Switzerland.

It’s perhaps not surprising that the latter 3 countries have announced nuclear phaseouts and withdrawals. It is only the UK government that remains in denial.

So the matter is now beyond question, ie there’s a very clear association between increased child leukemias and proximity to NPPs. The remaining question is its cause(s).

Observed risk 10,000 times greater than it’s meant to be

Most people worry about radioactive emissions and direct radiation from the NPPs, however any theory involving radiation has a major difficulty to overcome, and that is how to account for the large (~10,000 fold) discrepancy between official dose estimates from NPP emissions and the clearly-observed increased risks.

My explanation does involve radiation. It stems from KiKK’s principal finding that the increased incidences of infant and child leukemias were closely associated with proximity to the NPP chimneys.

It also stems from KiKK’s observation that the increased solid cancers were mostly “embryonal”, ie babies were born either with solid cancers or with pre-cancerous tissues which, after birth, developed into full-blown tumours: this actually happens with leukemia as well.

My explanation has five main elements:

  • First, the cancer increases may be due to radiation exposures from NPP emissions to air.
  • Second, large annual spikes in NPP emissions may result in increased dose rates to populations within 5 km of NPPs.
  • Third, the observed cancers may arise in utero in pregnant women.
  • Fourth, both the doses and their risks to embryos and to fetuses may be greater than current estimate.
  • And fifth, pre-natal blood-forming cells in bone marrow may be unusually radiosensitive.

Together these five factors offer a possible explanation for the discrepancy between estimated radiation doses from NPP releases and the risks observed by the KIKK study. These factors are discussed in considerable detail in the full article.

No errors or omissions have been pointed out

My article in fact shows that the current discrepancy can be explained. The leukemia increases observed by KiKK and by many other studies may arise in utero as a result of embryonal / fetal exposures to incorporated radionuclides from NPP radioactive emissions.

Very large emission spikes from NPPs might produce a pre-leukemic clone, and after birth a second radiation hit might transform a few of these clones into full-blown leukemia cells.

The affected babies are born pre-leukemic (which is invisible) and the full leukemias are only diagnosed within the first few years after birth.

To date, no letters to the editor have been received pointing out errors or omissions in this article.

 


 

Dr Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment.

This article was originally published on Ian Fairlie’s blog.

References

  • Bithell JF, M F G Murphy, C A Stiller, E Toumpakari, T Vincent and R Wakeford. (2013) Leukaemia in young children in the vicinity of British nuclear power plants: a case-control study. Br J Cancer, advance online publication, September 12, 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.560.
  • Bunch KJ, T J Vincent1, R J Black, M S Pearce, R J Q McNally, P A McKinney, L Parker, A W Craft and M F G Murphy (2014) Updated investigations of cancer excesses in individuals born or resident in the vicinity of Sellafield and Dounreay. British Journal of Cancer (2014), 1-10 | doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.357
  • Fairlie I (2013) A hypothesis to explain childhood cancers near nuclear power plants. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 133 (2014) 10e17.
  • Gardner MJ, Snee MP; Hall AJ; Powell CA; Downes S; Terrell JD (1990) Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. BMJ. 1990;300:423-429.
  • Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M. (2008) Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer; 122: 721-726.
  • Körblein A and Fairlie I (2012) French Geocap study confirms increased leukemia risks in young children near nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer 131: 2970-2971.
  • Spycher BD, Feller M, Zwahlen M, Röösli M, von der Weid NX, Hengartner H, Egger M, Kuehni CE. ‘Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: A census based cohort study’. International Journal of Epidemiology (2011) doi:10.1093/ije/DYR115.

 

 




383069