While we are on about alternate forms of energy, it has been starkly brought to our attention that the forest fires in Victoria are currently producing a vast amount of wasted energy.

This seems to happen increasingly, but let's be conservative and say that it happens on a ten year cycle. How much power could we generate, if instead of just letting it burn in wild forest fires, we harvested ten percent of it yearly and used it to burn in clean power stations. We would be getting a win-win-win situation. The regrowth would be absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, the sequestered CO2 would not be liberated into the atmosphere and the danger from these wild fires would be minimised.

Anti-Green

COMARE in the UK may have attained real progress in their findings of cancers in children, if they had allowed their findings to be used by other researchers.

What a pity that in their zest for recognition, COMARE released its paper to the press without any peer review.

This paper could hardly be called conclusive, given that COMARE have yet to investigate radiation cancers in adults where many cancers have a latent period, without symptoms and these periods can exceed 20 years.

Interesting also that COMARE is supposed to be "independent", when its secretary works inside the Department of Health and likes to hang out at the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB)which is notorious for its reluctance to regulate and its eagerness to "advise". COMARE is also notable for its failure to challenge NRPB's appallingly unscientific view on health detriments from radioactive pollution.

In the Notice of Motions in the House of Commons on 29/3/06, thirty members supported a motion which included the following excerpts:

"This House notes that the NPHS Wales and COMARE have accepted a Report from the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, denying the reality of a serious excess of childhood cancer and leukaemia around the Menai Strait in Nth Wales. The WCISU stands accused of recklessly using false data for populations in the study area with the effect of minimising the risks apparent in the cancer cases observed, despite having been warned of an exactly similar error in 2001. COMARE's endorsement of WCISU calls its epidemiological expertise into question and we call on the government to replace COMARE with a committee on the health effects of ionising radiation with a neutral chair, a full-time civil service secretariat and a budget sufficient to permit independent research, representative of all shades of relevant scientific opinion."

Cancer is the biggest killer of children in Britain today and brain tumours are knocking off a cool 16,000 victims annually.

Since you have failed to support your claim on the nuclear industries' "exemplary health and safety" record, would you like me to respond with some Australian and international data?

Dickie,

A cursory glance at the qualifications and experience of the COMALESARE membership list should make it clear to you that that it is a body of high scientific standing. I contrast this with your thirty or so anonymous MPs.

I appreciate that there are members of the anti-nuclear lobby who regards all opinion, no matter how well founded and resourced, that is contrary to their ideas as part of a “world wide conspiracy” directed at furthering the aims of the nuclear industry.

By all means present your data.

“I was very interested in your statement: Cancer is the biggest killer of children in Britain today and brain tumours are knocking off a cool 16,000 victims annually.”

So I checked the Mortality Statistics in England and Wales for 2005*

From table 2.2 on page 32. For ICD-10 code C69-C72 Malignant Neoplasms of eye, brain and other parts of central nervous system.

All ages males 1816; females 1251

Under 1y; males 0; females 3
1-4y; males 14; females 1
5-9y; males 22; females 16
10-14y; males 12; females 12
15-19y; males 10; females 10

I look forward to learn how you obtained your estimate of 16,000 victims annually. I also refer you back to my previous post on some of the pitfalls in interpreting epidemiological papers.

For the year 2005 all deaths in England Wales, from all causes and both sexes, ages 0-19y totalled 5586.

* Reference:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_32/DH2_No32_2005.pdf

Anti-Green

Apologies that my statement on childhood cancers and brain tumors was confusing and poorly written - perhaps a result of too much Xmas fare! Following are the corrections and sources:

"Cancer including Leukaemia is now the biggest killer of children in the UK." Source: House of Commons Hansard 12/07/05. 45 signatures from Members of Parliament by 18/7/05.

"16,000 cases of brain tumors are diagnosed each year in the UK."
Source: Brain Research Trust - fund-raising arm of the Institute of Neurology, University College of London.

I would hardly describe MPs or Hansards from the House of Commons as "anonymous" as you claim, particularly when decision making on additional nuclear power stations is a political one decided upon by Members of Parliament.

Please advise me of any scientific body which has peer reviewed COMARE's papers.

I remind you that COMARE conceded in its contradictory report that there was an increase in cancers in children living near the Sellafield and Dounreay nuclear plants where they advised that this finding requires more investigation.

The International Commission for Radiation Protection (ICRP) UK, which was set up, and is funded by the nuclear industry, is also a self-appointed, self-perpetuating body which publishes unchallenged and without peer review.

For you to accept as accurate, findings by committees simply as a result of their community and academic status reveals that you have had little experience in dealing with bureacrats and their use of compliant academic "experts."

I advise that I have had considerable experience from being appointed to an advisory environmental committee, set up by a state government. This experience left me with no doubt, that departments and government were merely seeking "ill-informed puppets" to maintain the status quo, in support of pollutant industries, without regard for the health of citizens or the environment.

I believe that senior personnel of this department were surprised to find that we were capable of interpreting and accessing relevant scientific evidence to support our arguments.

Data supplied on the Australian nuclear fuel cycle and Lucas Heights in the near future. Cheers, Anti-green.

Dickie,

You started the discussion by talking about mortality and mortality death rates. You have now switched to either incident rate or prevalence of brain tumour. If prevalence you must state the period of observation. The best source of incidence data is from cancer registries

I do not have your references to hand nor do I have the time to try and search them out.

You continue to discuss “deaths”. I do not have comparable data for UK, but according to the ABS [Health of Children 2004] leading causes of death age 1-14 in Australia in 2004 is as follows:

Injuries and poisoning 229 children or 37% of all deaths in the age group.
[105 of the injury deaths were due transport accidents]

Malignant Neoplasms 118 children or 19%. In this subset you are correct Leukaemia and Brain Tumours predominate.

Surely, you are not making the claim that all cancer deaths are radiogenic. In fact you would be hard pressed to prove any were of radiogenic origin. Especially, in the case of leukaemia, given that infection is thought to be an important aetiological factor in this disease.

My sympathies are with the government scientists in their attempt to inform a lay committee composed of anti-industrial, anti-development environmental zealots. It is not the function of regulators to make it so difficult that industry can not function.

Although I appreciate, that as an environmentalist you would like to shut down one industry after the other. To hell with the consequences: If Workers lose their jobs and families suffering from unemployment. Consumers being denied the fruits of industry and so on.

I have been a user of radioactivity for the greater part of my professional life and I always had friendliest of relationship with state and/or federal regulators. In fact on many, many occasions their expertise and professionalism was invaluable to me.

Anti-green

Typically, you have again failed to address my claims and continue to sidestep the relevant issues.

Why do you refuse to advise me of any scientific body which has peer reviewed the findings of COMARE? After all, it was you who raised COMARE's reports to support your argument.

And typical of many pro-pollutant industry representatives, which are hellbent on profits at all costs, you continue to raise the tired old incredulous accusation that enviromentalists want to shut down industry. However, let's return to the subject at hand:

1. "Reported incidents of trafficking and mishandling of nuclear material worldwide doubled between 2000 and 2005 according to the US Department of Homeland Security. The department received 215 reports of nuclear trafficking and related criminal activity worldwide in 2005.

"The number of trafficking incidents recorded by the Dept. of H/Security incidents was more than double that reported in August by the IAEA. The UN nuclear watchdog received reports of 103 incidents in 2005." Mmmmmmmmm? Source: West Australian 28/12/06

2. "Nuclear power is a costly option. Nuclear power has only been viable where there is substanial government support. Nuclear power does not address its contribution to greenhouse gases. Current structure and regulatory environment of the uranium mines have had repeated minor accidents involving radioactive waste into the environment." Source: Public Health Assoc. of Australia to House of Reps. Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. Parliament House Canberra.

3. "Greenpeace believes industry should always prove a substance is harmless before releasing it into the environment. If there is scientific doubt; or a substance has not been tested, it should not be released" Source: Greenpeace

4. "During exposure assessments, we pay close attention to the potential for radon generation. In designing cleanup standards for uranium mill tailings, we targeted radium-226 which decays to radon 222, rather than radon-222 alone. The radium-226 continues to generate radon-222 during its much longer half-life". Source:US EPA

Continued...........