Memorandum submitted by Dr Ian Fairlie
I am an independent consultant on radiation
matters. Between 2000 and 2004, I served as scientific Secretary
to the Government's CERRIE Committee on internal radiation hazards.
I wish to submit evidence to the Committee on one aspect: the
recent evidence that living near nuclear reactors carries grave
health risks for infants and children—more than doubling
their risk of leukemia. I have written extensively on this matter
in scientific journals: a list of my published articles in recent
years in contained in the box below.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several studies
revealed increased incidences of childhood leukemia near UK nuclear
facilities. However official estimated doses from released nuclides
were too low, by two to three orders of magnitude, to
explain the increased leukemias.
Recent epidemiological studies have reopened
the childhood leukemia debate. Baker and Hoel (2007) carried out
a meta-analysis of 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France,
US, Germany, Japan and Spain and found cancer death rates for
children were elevated by 5-24% depending on proximity to nuclear
facilities. Hoffmann et al (2007) found 14 leukemia
cases between 1990-2005 in children living within 5 km
of the Krümmel nuclear plant in Germany, significantly exceeding
the 0.45 predicted cases.
Most important, however, is the KiKK study (Kinderkrebs
in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken = Childhood Cancer in the
Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants) Spix et al (2007) and
Kaatsch et al (2008). The main findings were a 160% increase
in solid cancer risk and a 220% increase in leukemia risk among
young children living within 5 km of all German nuclear reactors.
These are big increases in risk.
The KiKK report is significant because it is
a large and well-conducted study; because it is scientifically
rigorous; because its evidence is particularly strong; and because
the German Government, which commissioned the study, has confirmed
its findings. Over 60 other studies world-wide (Körblein
and Fairlie, 2009) have investigated child leukemias near nuclear
facilities. The large majority of these studies have found increased
incidences of leukemia: this lends considerable support to the
KiKK findings.
The KiKK observations are presently the subject
of intense research and discussion throughout the world, including
at least three studies in the UK. Last November, the Department
of Health requested the Government's Committee on the Medical
Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) to examine the
German study and report back.
(Also last November, in a case of unfortunate
timing, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published
a Consultation paper justifying the radiation exposures from its
proposed new nuclear stations. The problem is that COMARE's report
will not be finished until after the Consultation's February 22 deadline,
and DECC has refused public requests to extend its deadline until
the COMARE report is finished. This is unfortunate and, in my
view, it is an unreasonable position for DECC to take. It is clearly
important that we get to grips with the KiKK evidence before decisions
are made on building more nuclear power stations.)
In 2009, the Health Protection Agency submitted
a memorandum (Mobbs et al, 2009) on health risks from radiation
to the Government's Consultations. This seeks to diminish the
KiKK study and devotes only half a page to the lengthy KiKK report.
The HPA's criticisms are cursory, poorly argued and misleading.
For example, the HPA memorandum seeks to argue that the KiKK study
merely found an association between NPP (nuclear power plant)
proximity and risk, ie and not between dose and risk—implying
that radiation exposures were not a causative factor. This is
unpersuasive: childhood leukemia is well known to be closely associated
with radiation exposures. The HPA memorandum also states that
a UK study and a French study "have not replicated"
the KiKK findings. This is misleading as the two studies actually
did find small leukemia increases in children near NPPs. Their
data were not statistically significant but this was due to the
smallness of the studies and not the absence of effect. The HPA's
view remains that official estimated doses from NPP releases are
much too small to result in the observed levels of leukemia. But
the CERRIE (2004) report showed that there could be very large
uncertainties in official dose estimates from inhaled and ingested
radionuclides.
It is too early to provide an explanation for
these increased cancers, although radiation exposures are clearly
implicated. I have put forward the hypothesis (Fairlie, 2009)
that these infant leukemias are a teratogenic effect resulting
from in utero exposures to radiation from intakes of radionuclides
during pregnancy. It suggests that (a) doses from environmental
emissions from nuclear reactors to embryos/foetuses near reactors
may be much larger than currently estimated, and (b) that haematopoietic
tissues may be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/foetuses
than in babies. Whatever the explanation(s), the recent epidemiological
evidence provides strong evidence that living near nuclear reactors
carries grave health risks for babies and children—more
than doubling their risk of leukemia.
Fairlie I. Childhood Cancer Near German Nuclear
Power Stations. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part
C. In press. 2010.
Fairlie I and Körblein A. Review of epidemiology
studies of childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities: Commentary
on Laurier et al. Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2009) Vol 137,
Number 3-4 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp246.
Körblein A and Fairlie I. Commentary on
J F Bithell, et al Childhood Leukaemia near British Nuclear Installations:
Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiation Protection
Dosimetry (2009) Vol 137, Number 3-4 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp206
Fairlie I. Childhood Cancers Near German Nuclear
Power Stations: the ongoing debate. Medicine, Conflict and Survival
Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 197-205
Fairlie I. Childhood Cancers Near German Nuclear
Power Stations: hypothesis to explain the cancer increases. Medicine,
Conflict and Survival Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 206-220
Fairlie I. New evidence of childhood leukaemias
near nuclear power stations. Medicine, Conflict and Survival,
Vol 24:3, pp 219-227. August 2008.
REFERENCES
Baker P and Hoel D (2007) Meta-analysis of standardized
incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemias in proximity
to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007;16:355-363.
CERRIE (2004) Report of the Committee Examining the
Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. www.cerrie.org
Fairlie I (2009) Childhood Cancers near German Nuclear
Power Stations: Hypothesis to Explain the Cancer Increases. Medicine,
Conflict and Survival Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 206-220.
Hoffmann W et al (2007) Childhood Leukemia in the
Vicinity of the Geesthacht Nuclear Establishments near Hamburg,
Germany. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 115, No 6, June
2007.
Kaatsch P et al (2008) Leukaemia in young children
living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer.
2008; 122(4) pp 721-6.
Fairlie I and Körblein A (2009) Review of epidemiology
studies of childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities: Commentary
on Laurier et al. Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2009) Vol 137,
Number 3-4 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp246.
Mobbs et al (2009) An introduction to the estimation
of risks arising from the exposure to low doses of ionising radiation.
HPA-RPD-055. Health Protection Agency. Oxford.
Spix C et al (2008) Case-control study on childhood
cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980—2003.
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Jan; 44(2) pp 275-84.
January 2010
| 
