We are talking about an additional radiation exposure in the realm of 0.0002 mSv for those living near a nuclear power plant, versus a background level of 2 to 4 mSv (depending on where you live) due to everything from cosmic rays to ground-derived radon emission to eating bananas (this last one gives you more radiation than the NPP). That’s 1/15,000 of your total yearly dosage from nuclear power (in the US). Living near a coal-fired power station would give you 100 to 300 times more radiation exposure than living next to a nuclear power plant, and even that is trivial and not the reason coal burning is damaging to your health. To consider the annual radiation caused by nuclear power stations as anything dangerous is a gross form of public deception.

The important BEIR VII of 2006 from the National Academy of Sciences (Washington) comments that an unavoidable weakness of environmental studies is the lack of direct measurement of individual exposure. So they can only be of limited value in assessing risk. With regard to populations living in the vicinity of nuclear facilities 16 ecological studies are sited and three negative case-control studies. A firm conclusion can not be made from these studies.

The Kaatch study as quoted is a case-control study. 593 cases of leukaemia over 23 years is 25.7 cases per year. The total population at risk is not stated so there is no estimate of incidence ratio and no control population with which to compare incidence ratios.

Kaatch points out that with regard to distance from a nuclear plant.
“It was not possible to account for the fact that children will naturally spend time at places other then their home address.”

According to Kaatch confounders other then radiation was not considered: such as social class, pesticides, immunological factors, exposure to ionizing radiation from other sources.

An accompanying editorial makes three important points (Int J Cancer. 2008; 122(4): page xi).

• Firstly and most likely this is a chance observation.

• The exposure to children is much higher then could be inferred from available measures.

• Thirdly Kinlen’s hypothesis is correct namely leukaemia is a rare response to as yet an unidentified an infectious agent. This is favoured by an influx of people and changing population into areas where there are large construction works. This would be especially likely if the incidence drops as the population stabilises and diminishes as the construction workers complete their tasks.

The 11th report of The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (UK) notes that clustering both in time and space for certain childhood types of childhood leukaemia is common and is not always in the vicinity of nuclear plants.

Oh dear, it was only yesterday that K.Rudd made the announcement. I also speculated on another thread, how long before “things” started to crawl out from under the stones. Guess what? We’ve been “Caldicotted” again as rpg puts it.

Helen spouted so much rubbish in her last article that I can’t be bothered to get involved.

Good Night

Apologies to JBowyer and everybody else. IFR = Integral Fast Reactor.

Just briefly, it is a reactor cycle which uses as fuel current
nuclear waste and allows the closure of all uranium mines. So
it solves 2 of the major problems with nuclear power ... advocates
say it solves the rest of the problems also. For details see:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/05/25/p4tp-chapter-4-everyone-can-now-read-blees-on-ifr/

Apology accepted Geoff Russell and it is just so nice when people are courteous. Thank you very much.

What stage is IFR's at for commercial application?
What time scale if it was 'fast tracked' before it was generating power?