Risks always need to be compared against alternatives, so the
risks of leukemia from living next to a nuke need to be
compared to the risks of living next to a coal fired
power station, or the risks due to a change in the global climate, or
whatever you think is a reasonable alternative. Stated on their
own, they mean little. Risks also need to be considered with
incidence rates. About 1 in 100 people will get leukemia in
Australia, while about 1 in 20 will get colorectal cancer. Since
about half of all colorectal cancer is avoidable by reducing
red meat intake to 1 time per week, red meat dwarfs any possible
risk from nuclear power as a cause of suffering.
If climate change brings extended
El Ninos, then the suffering this produces via occasional monsoon
failures will absolutely dwarf anything from nuclear.

You were a hero of mine, Helen, when I was a young and
avidly anti-nuclear. But you need to look at the bigger picture. I
have reluctantly changed my views and welcome IFR as about the
only hopeful technology that might help us out of the
current mess. It will also help us shut down uranium mines, so
if you really want to reduce uranium proliferation, you need
to be pro IFR.

Looking at the figures and not just cherry picking the results.

In an area of about 1400 sq km over about 20 years there were about 10 more incidences of leukaemia over 20 years. Which was only just statistically significant.

Findings in similar studies in Britain and France found no statistical significance.

Helen Caldicott like most Nuke protesters obviously feels that because her cause is "Right" she is not constrained to telling the whole truth, but only the fragments that support her crusade.

Nuclear provided about 16% of the world's electricity which is the greatest contributor to GHG

And your point is?

I presume that you then agree with the expansion in coal fired power (esp. in the developing countries of China and India) along with the associated health and environmental costs.

Just looking at Wikipedia there are some interesting statistics relating to coal mining

China 6,027 deaths in 2004
USA 28 deaths in 2004
Lung disease in the USA attributable to coal mining amounts to 4000 new cases annually.

I am sure further research would indicate similar figures in many other countries of the world and these only relate to those actually digging it out of the ground. As mentioned above, what about the side effects of pollution ? No one wants to live next to any power station, but given the choice, it would be a nuclear one for me.

Geoff Russell what is IFR and why do you use this acronym? Does this make you feel super Geoff, well sorry it makes you look supercilious.
Shadow Minister ditto on GHG.
Why can't you both just speak in plain English? It would make your case so much easier to understand or is that the real reason why you babble in acronyms?
Helen Caldicott After seeing the absolute spectacle of you jousting with Switkowski on TV I was astounded. If any male had put on the malevolent stare and almost frantic scribbling you subjected us to then the row would have been horrendous. The ABC would have lead the charge on male Bullying and you would have screamed the ceiling off. You are a megalomaniac whose only concern if for yourself and if you say it, I do not believe it.

Trying to seek more information I found this quote

"The study found that 37 children had come down with leukemia in the period between 1980 and 2003 while having home addresses within 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) of nuclear power plants. The statistical average for Germany would have predicted just 17 cases in that group."

When figures get sufficiently low they become useless. Imagine if our road toll doubled this year when it was 1 last year but 2 this year, yep a 100% increase. If the energy needs of millions of people can be met at the cost of 20 more cases of a usually treatable illness then perhaps that's worth it. Actually you could just locate nuclear power plants more than 5km from population centers, in Australia that would be very easy, you could sit them 10km away without much trouble. Also new power plants probably capture their emissions better than these older designs. Can't see much reason here not to go nuclear.