2011 | FROM THE ARCHIVE
End the equivocation By John C.H. Lindberg FRSA
A report released in 2011 caught headlines internationally by exploring the potential link between childhood cancer and the Sellafield nuclear site. What’s happened since?
Above: Oldbury’s cider orchard Photo by Louise Broom
In the November 2011 edition of Nuclear Engineering International, the article ‘Exploring the leukaemia link’ followed the publication of the UK Committee On Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) report on potential linkage between nuclear power plants and childhood leukaemia. The article reports that the
COMARE review did not find any increases in childhood leukaemia or Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in the vicinity of British nuclear power plants. This is in line with similar reports from for instance France and Finland.
As noted, the COMARE report
explicitly omitted investigating Sellafield and Dounreay. A cancer cluster found in Seascale, just south of Sellafield, caused headlines internationally. Five years after the COMARE report on childhood leukaemia, a new report from the Committee was released revisiting these clusters, finding that it was highly unlikely that radiation emissions – which had been very low – were the cause of these clusters. But the idea of these cancer clusters has lived on and continues to accompany nuclear debate around the world like a pale ghost.
And perhaps that’s quite understandable. Cancer of any sort is undoubtedly a terrifying prospect, and it is a malaise that most of us – if not all – have or will encounter at some point in our lives. The combination of children and cancer send shivers down any parents’ spine. I might be scarred by my own experiences, having had two classmates die from leukaemia, but I distinctly remember growing up being told that any weird bruises might be the feared “C”. Counteracting the many myths and the wilful anti-nuclear propaganda that seeks to inflate
any cancer risks is a considerable challenge for the nuclear community, but it is not insurmountable. However, the article clearly showcases one of the fundamental weaknesses in the way radiation health effects have historically been communicated to the public, i.e. the failure to answer the “real” question of “am I safe”, or perhaps more pertinently, “is my child safe”. The following sentence epitomises this: “…data is suggestive of a risk estimate for childhood leukaemia associated with proximity to an [nuclear power plant] that is extremely small, if not actually zero.” The problem with this statement (and the countless similar ones made before and since) is that it is not unequivocally saying that there is no risk – even if that is what is being said in reality. It is well-established psychologically that humans are in practice blind to probabilities, and for them probability for all intents and purposes equals possibility. By using the hedging language
often seen in radiation protection, a message quite opposite to the one intended is being transmitted to the public. We know for a fact that nuclear power plants do not cause cancer, and the nuclear community needs to adopt the unequivocal language required to counter the fearmongering that is far too common in these conversations. Emotional messaging around these issues will be of immense value.
The only question is – why have we not already started doing this? ■
Counteracting the many myths and the wilful anti-nuclear propaganda that seeks to majorly inflate any cancer risks is a considerable challenge for the nuclear community, but it is not insurmountable
www.neimagazine.com | November 2021 | 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
