Science & Technology CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley (Risk 01)

1. Key factors influencing public risk perception are experience of public health damage from exposure to nuclear site discharges into the atmosphere and seawater.

2. Public risk perceptions are disregarded and discredited in the planning process for energy infrastructure: eg PCAH response to the Justification consultation on new nuclear build; PCAH’s verbal contribution to the first meeting of the Hinkley C Community forum; PCAH delegate’s contribution to Hinkley Point site stakeholder group meetings since 1995.

3. Local and central Government risk assessment’s continuing reliance on the ICRP risk model illustrates how their perception of risk needs to catch up with the current ECRR risk assessment model.

4. Public perceptions will not be changed by continuing exposure to nuclear industry and regulatory communications which do not reflect the reality of the public’s experiences of health damage throughout their 45 years’ exposure to the realities of living (and dying) close to nuclear sites.

5. The Government must work with NGOs and the numerous experts on radiation risk including in the UK: Green Audit and Dr Christopher Busby, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, John Large Associates assessment of the EPR nuclear reactor, Greenpeace, Dr Ian Fairlie, Dr Paul Dorfmann.

6. Risk perceptions and communication issues in the UK are similar to groups in other European countries though we have yet to achieve Germany’s realistic assessment of nuclear power as being an unnecessary threat to human life which cannot be justified on any criteria of risk benefit analysis.

We hope members of the Science and Technology will take the time to read for themselves the items listed below all of which are available through the Stop Hinkley website and Green Audit.

Health Damage to Communities Living near Nuclear Sites

Somerset Coastal Communities Downwind of Hinkley Point Nuclear Site

Published scientific research papers (see list below) and available at show that since 1965, when Hinkley Point nuclear reactors came on stream the following illnesses showed excess incidence:

Childhood leukaemia

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Thyroid malfunction

Adult leukaemia

Breast Cancer

Endocrine disruption disorders

Prostate cancer

Pregnancy and childbirth problems

Lung and stomach cancer

Infant and Perinatal Mortality

Immune system impairment

Heritable genetic mutations

During decommissioning, reprocessing, storage and disposal of radioactive waste after nuclear plants close down, the following additional illnesses have been recorded at Sellafield in the UK and South Carolina in America:

Heart attacks

Pleural cancer


Skin cancer

Brain tumours

Kidney cancer



The Hinkley A nuclear site has now closed down. Decommissioning and on-site reprocessing began in January 2006 releasing high level radionucleides into the atmosphere and the estuary. We are already seeing unexpected cardiovascular, kidney and skin problems among Somerset coast residents.

After five years of exposure to decommissioning gases from the two Hinkley A Magnox reactors, we are seeing excess incidence of central nervous system illness and fatalities including Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Motor Neurone Disease. Macular degeneration is also increasing.

Radioactive isotopes released from Hinkley decommissioning and waste include:

Plutonium 241—affects skin, bone, liver. Fatal dose 3mg

Tritium crosses placenta; birth defects

Uranium—binds to DNA, affects kidneys


Caesium 137—affects muscle, brain

Iron Fe-55

Strontium 90—displaces bone calcium, causing injuries
and cancer including leukaemia

Cobalt 60

“The Madness of Nuclear Energy” Volume 29 No 7 November 1999—printed copy “The Ecologist” on line at

Best publication on all aspects of nuclear energy including health detriment, political cover-ups, new build propaganda etc.

International Journal of Epidemiology 4 March 2008.
Westlakes Scientific Consulting: Professor Steve Jones.

This large study of 65,000 men employed at Sellafield reprocessing plant between 1946 and 2002 found the risks of death from heart attacks and strokes increased with exposure to higher levels of radiation.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, December 2007

Authors: Dr David B Richardson, University of North Carolina.
This study is of 19,000 employees of the Savannah River Site, South Carolina which has processed nuclear materials since the 1950s. It found excess leukaemia and pleural cancers among men and elevated rates of kidney and skin cancers in women.

Infant and Perinatal Mortality and Stillbirths near Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station 1993–2005

Authors: Chris Busby, Mireille de Messieres, Saoirse Morgan
Occasional Paper 2007/6 Publisher: Green Audit, Aberystwyth July 2007

“Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station in Somerset 1995-1998 Part 1 Breast Cancer”

Authors: Chris Busby PhD, Paul Dorfman BSc, Helen Rowe BA.

“Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Oldbury Nuclear Power Station in Gloucestershire 1995–99”

Authors: Chris Busby PhD, Paul Dorfman BSc, Helen Rowe BA, Bruce Kocjan BSc

“Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station in Somerset 1995–98 Part 3 All Malignancies, Lung and Stomach Cancer. Summary”

Authors: Chris Busby PhD, Paul Dorfman BSc, Helen Rowe BA

“Leukaemia Incidence in Somerset with Particular Reference to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station”

Taunton: Somerset Health Authority: Bowie C and Ewings P C 1988
Also referred to in the above “All Malignancies…” paper by Dr Busby

“Incidence of Leukaemia in Young People in the Vicinity of Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station 1959–86”

Authors: Ewings P D, Bowie C, Phillips M J, Johnson S A
British Medical Journal 1989; 299(6694): 289–93

“Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm”

Authors: Richard R Monson, James S Cleaver
The National Academy of Sciences, BEIR VII report June 29 2005
This is one of many sources in “Nuclear Power is not the Answer” by Helen Caldicott. It supports other publications in linking radiation exposure to heart attacks and strokes.

ISBN 0-9543081-1-5
“CERRIE Minority Report 2004”

Authors: Richard Bramhall, Chris Busby, Paul Dorfman
This report provides strong biological and epidemiological evidence that current models of hazard from radioactivity inside the human body underestimate risks by at least 100 and possibly up to 1000 times.

Doses to the Embryo and Foetus from Intakes of Radionucleides by the Mother

ICRP (2001) Publication 88 Ann. ICRP 31 (1–3)

German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) 2007
BfS commissioned this University of Mainz study which found that between 1980-2003, 77 children developed cancer near 16 nuclear sites, against a statistical average of 48. The German Federal Minister for Environment, Sigmar Gabriel, has now asked the Radiation Protection Commission to undertake a follow up study into causalities between nuclear power plants and leukaemia in children.

“Meta-Analysis of Standardized Incidence and Mortality Rates of Childhood Leukaemia in Proximity to Nuclear Facilities 2007”

Authors: Baker P J & Hoel D G (2007) European Journal of Cancer Care 16, 355–363
Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Radiation and Health

Science for Democratic Action August 2009
Nuclear power plants generate tritium in the course of their operation and release it both to the atmosphere and to water bodies. Tritium releases have also occurred as a result of malfunctions such as leaks from several nuclear power plants. One such example of leaks was at Exelon’s Braidwood plant in Illinois. Many reactors have experienced leaks that have not been monitored. Further, releases of tritiated water vapor from the stacks of nuclear power plants can result in radioactive rainfall, which can contaminate surface water bodies as well as groundwater. As radioactive water, tritium can cross the placenta, posing some risk of birth defects and early pregnancy failures. Ingestion of tritiated water also increases cancer risk. In this article we will only discuss tritium in the form of radioactive water.

“Wolves of Water” by Chris Busby, 2006

Publishers: Green Audit Books 2006, Aberystwyth, SY23 1DZ, Wales, UK.
Price £12.  ISBN 1-897761-26-0

ISBN: 1 897761
“ECRR 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk”

Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes
Covers the problems with using Hiroshima data to set current health risk levels now that we know internal exposure to low radiation levels by inhalation and ingestion disrupt cell replication cycles and interfere with human DNA.

ISBN: 1-897761-25-2
“ECRR Chernobyl: 20 Years On—Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident”

Editors: C C Busby and A V Yablokov
An invaluable archive of contributions from Russian and European scientists on the true effects the Chernobyl accident had and continues to have on the exposed populations, including those in Scandinavia and the UK.

Evidence of Significant Enriched Uranium atomic fuel contamination of the Hinkley Point nuclear site in Somerset and its potential implications.

Authors: Dr Chris Busby, Cecily Collingridge
January 2011  Aberystwyth: Green Audit  Occasional Paper 2011/1

ISBN-13:978-1-59558-067-2 or ISBN-10: 1-50559-067-2
“Nuclear Power is Not the Answer” by Helen Caldicott 2006

Price about £14

“Wings of Death—Nuclear Pollution and Human Health” by Dr Chris Busby 1995

Publishers: Green Audit, Aberystwyth ISBN 1-897761-03-1
This book has some eye opening ideas on nuclear pollution, the links to cancer and a very credible hypothesis about the initiation of cancers. It is a very important book.

ISBN 978 1 84668 353 4
“The Language of Life; DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine”

Author: Francis Collins
Published in GB in 2010 by Profile Books Ltd

EDF Proposed EPR (European Pressurised Water) New Build Mox Burning Reactor at Hinkley Point, Somerset. Go to website http://largeassociates for extracts from John Large’s lecture in October 2008 to Hinkley nearby communities.

UK and European publications can be sourced from:
Green Audit, Aberystwyth, SY23 1DZ, Wales or from
  The Low Level Radiation CampaignBramhall@llrc

Nuclear Reading List compiled by Jo Brown, PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley)

Studies on this Nuclear Reading list are available on the Stop Hinkley website

References for KiKK Study into Childhood Cancers

1. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): The implications of the new data on the releases from Sellafield in the 1950s for the possible increased incidence of cancer in west Cumbria. First report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1986.

2. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): Investigation of the possible increased incidence of childhood cancer in young persons near the Dounreay nuclear establishment, Caithness, Scotland. Second report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1988.

3. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): Report on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area which are situated the atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston and Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield. Third report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1989.

4. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): The incidence of cancer and leukemias in young people in the vicinity of the Sellafield site, West Cumbria: further studies and an update of the situation since the publication of the report of the Black Advisory Group in 1984. Fourth report. London: Department of Health; 1996.

5. Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M: Leukemias in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer 2008, 122:721–726.

6. Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M: Case-control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44: 275–284.

7. Körblein A, Hoffmann W: Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants. Medicine & Global Survival 1999, 6(1):18-23. Available at

8. Weiss W: Background information on the KiKK study. German Federal Office for Radiation Protection 2007, Berlin, Germany. Available in English at

9. BfS: Unanimous Statement by the Expert Group commissioned by the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz on the KiKK Study: German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Berlin, Germany. 2007 Available in English at

10. Stewart A, Webb J, Hewitt D: A survey of childhood malignancies. British Medical Journal 1958, 1:1495–1508.

11. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Research Council. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations. BEIR V Report. 1990 Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

12. Preston D L, Kusumi S, Tomonaga M, et al: Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. III. Leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950–1987. Radiat Res 1994, 137(Suppl): S68–S97.

13. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. I. X- and gamma radiation, and neutrons. Ionizing radiation: volume 75. Lyon, France: IARC; 1999.

14. Forman D, Cook-Mozaffari P, Darby S, Davey G, Stratton I, Doll R, Pike M: Cancer near nuclear installations. Nature 1987, 329(6139): 499–505.

15. Gardner M J: Father’s occupational exposure to radiation and the raised level of childhood leukemias near the Sellafield nuclear plant. Environ Health Perspect 1991, 94:5–7.

16. Pobel D, Viel J F: Case–-control study of leukemias among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: the environmental hypothesis revisited. BMJ 1997, 314:101–106.

17. Laurier D, Bard D: Epidemiologic studies of leukemia among persons under 25 years of age living near nuclear sites. Epidemiol Rev 1999, 21(2):188-206.

18. Guizard A V, Boutou O, Pottier D, Troussard X, Pheby D, Launoy G, Slama R, Spira A: The incidence of childhood leukemias around the La Hague nuclear waste reprocessing plant (France): a survey for the years 1978–1998. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001, 55:469–474.

19. Hoffmann W, Terschueren C, Richardson D B: Childhood leukemias in the vicinity of the Geesthacht nuclear establishments near Hamburg, Germany Environ Health Perspect 2007,115:947–952. Available at

20. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain. Tenth report. London: Health Protection Agency; 2005.

21. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): The distribution of childhood leukemias and other childhood cancer in Great Britain 1969–1993. Eleventh report. London: Health Protection Agency; 2006.

22. White-Koning M L, Hemon D, Laurier D, Tirmarche M, Jougla E, Goubin A, Clavel J: Incidence of childhood leukemias in the vicinity of nuclear sites in France, 1990–98. Br J Cancer 2004, 91:916–922.

23. Laurier D, Grosche B, Hall P: Risk of childhood leukemia in the vicinity of nuclear installations—findings and recent controversies. Acta Oncol 2002, 41(1):14–24.

24. Bithell J T, Keegan T J, Kroll M E, Murphy M F G, Vincent T J: Childhood leukemia near British Nuclear Installations: Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2008, 45:1–7.

25. Laurier D, Hémon D, Clavel J: Childhood leukemia incidence below the age of 5 years near French nuclear power plants. J Radiol Prot 2008, 28:401–403.

26. Sterne JAC, Smith GD: Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? Phys Ther 2001, 81(8):1464–1469.

27. Axelson O: Negative and non-positive epidemiological studies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004, 17:115–121.

28. Everett D C, Taylor S, Kafadar K: Fundamental Concepts in Statistics: Elucidation and Illustration. J of Applied Physiology 1998, 85(3): 775–786.

29. Whitley E, Ball J: Statistics review 1: Presenting and summarising data. Crit Care 2002, 6:66–71.

30. Altman D G, Bland J M: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995, 311: 485.

31. Baker P J, Hoel D: Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemias in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care 2007, 16:355–363.

32. Personal communication from Dr A Körblein.

33. Kaatsch, P; Spix, C; Jung, I; Blettner, M: Childhood Leukemia in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Germany. Deutsch Arztebl Int 2008, 105(42): 725–32.

34. Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier M O, Leuraud K, Metz C, Samson E, Laloi P: Epidemiological studies of leukaemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: a critical review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008, 132(2): 182–90.

35. Bradford Hill A: The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965, 58:295–300.

36. Fucic A, Brunborg G, Lasan R, Jezek D, Knudsen L E, Merlo D F: Genomic damage in children accidentally exposed to ionizing radiation: a review of the literature. Mutat Res 2008, 658(1–2): 111–23.

37. Baverstock K: Childhood leukemias are caused by background radiation. New Scientist January 9, 2003. 4.

38. Gardner M J, Snee M P, Hall A J, Powell C A, Downes S, Terrell J D: Results of casecontrol study of leukemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. BMJ 1990, 300:423–429.

39. Morris J A: Leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield. BMJ 1990, 300(6725):676–678. (letter).

40. Morris J A: A mutational theory of leukaemogenesis. J Clin Pathol 1989, 42:337–40.

41. Lord B I, Mason T M, Humphreys E R: Age-Dependent Uptake and Retention of 239Pu: Its Relationship to Hemopoietic Damage. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 1992, 41:163–167.

42. Ohtaki K, Kodama Y, Nakano M, Itoh M, Awa A A, Cologne J, Nakamura N: Human fetuses do not register chromosome damage inflicted by radiation exposure in lymphoid precursor cells except for a small but significant effect at low doses. Radiat Res 2004, 161:373–379.

Figure Legends

Figure 1

Annual averages of tritium concentrations in air measured at distances from nuclear power stations in Canada, 1985–99 Abstracted from: Tritium in the Canadian Environment: Levels and Health Effects. Report RSP-0153-1 (2003). Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission under CNSC contract no. 87055-01-0184 by Ranasara Consultants and Richard Osborne. Data from Health Canada: Environmental Radioactivity in Canada. Radiological Monitoring Report. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada; 2001.

Figure 2

Tritium concentrations in vegetation/food moisture near Canadian nuclear power stations Abstracted from: Tritium in the Canadian Environment: Levels and Health Effects. Report RSP-0153-1 (2003). Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission under CNSC contract no. 87055-01-0184 by Ranasara Consultants and Richard Osborne. Data from Health Canada: Environmental Radioactivity in Canada. Radiological Monitoring Report. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada; 2001.

Figure 3

Quarterly 14C air concentrations near the Neckarwestheim 2 nuclear power station in Germany. Abstracted from Jahresbericht (Annual Yearbook) 2007: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Berlin, Germany.


Table 1

Leukemia mortality risks Source: Baker and Hoel, 2007[31]

Table 2

KiKK odds ratios for leukemias in children < five years old
Source: continuous regression model used by Kaatsch et al, 2008[5]

Table 3

Summary of Bradford Hill test results
Age Groups
0–9, 0–9, 0–25, 0–25
Distance from reactor—km Mean distance—km
>5, 5 to <10, 10 to <30, 30 to <50, 50 to <70, >70

Jo M Brown
PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley)

23 November 2011

Prepared 6th July 2012