When it comes to nuclear radiation, there is a clear disconnect between the medical evidence and the views of the Coalition. Since the 1950s we have known there is a link between X-rays in pregnant women and leukemia and other cancers in their children. It is not for nothing there are signs in every radiology department asking if you are pregnant.
The current shrill denunciations of potential health risks associated with nuclear power plants as a “scare campaign” may yet prove to be an own goal, as it has drawn attention to the issue. Communities considering hosting a nuclear reactor should be aware of the evidence regarding real-world health impacts. Informed consent matters, in politics as well as medicine.
Extra cases of leukaemia occurring in children living near nuclear power plants have caused concern and controversy over decades. In the 1980s excess cases of leukaemia and lymphoma were noticed around the Sellafield nuclear plant in England.
A UK government investigation unexpectedly found that the risks for leukaemia and lymphoma were higher than in the surrounding population. In 2007, the US Department of Energy examined all the reliable data available worldwide, confirming a significant increase in leukaemia for children living near nuclear power plants.
The clearest findings on this subject come from a large national German study from 2008, which examined leukaemia among children living near any of Germany’s 16 operating nuclear plants over a 25-year period.
It showed that the risk of leukaemia more than doubled for children living within 5 km of a nuclear plant. Nuclear proponents quote a UN study with an 80 km radius showing no harm, but the much larger distance dilutes any problems for those living much closer.
Just last June, a very large (over seven million people) meta-analysis of reliable data from a range of studies found residents of any age living 20-30 km from nuclear power stations had an average 5% increased cancer risk, and again children under five were the worst impacted. Thyroid cancer increased by 17 per cent and leukemia by 9 per cent.
For workers in the nuclear industries, there is also clear evidence of increased risk of death from cancer. Indeed, recent findings show even some non-cancer diseases are increased, such as heart attack and stroke.
The best evidence for this comes from INWORKS, a multi-country study of over 300,000 radiation industry workers observed for more than 30 years. Their radiation exposures and health outcomes were carefully monitored and compared with the general population.
The cancers caused by radiation blend in with other cancers – they are not like the characteristic mesothelioma caused by asbestos. The heart attacks and strokes have the same problem. As a result, it takes large population studies and careful long-term monitoring to know what the risks are.
The Coalition has also made claims linking radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine to nuclear power that are patently false and deliberately misleading.
A letter sent by Coalition MPs to their constituents earlier this year claimed that: “Nuclear energy already plays a major role in medicine and healthcare, diagnosing and treating thousands of Australians every day”.
We do not have, and have never had, nuclear power in Australia, and the nuclear power proposal has no connection to our world class nuclear medicine, radiology or radiotherapy services.
Doctors are increasingly concerned about the radiation exposures from medical imaging, particularly in children. CT scans and nuclear medicine scans are done only when essential, and the benefit outweighs the risks. We worry about cumulative lifetime exposures, especially in children.
But perhaps the biggest health issue of all with the Coalition’s proposal is the increased use of coal and gas, for decades to come. Climate change has started, and we have to take action as soon as possible.
From a health perspective, recklessly worsening future heat waves, fires, storms, floods and droughts by delaying the transition from coal for political gain is unconscionable.
Finally, the Coalition’s response to my public submission and testimony to a government inquiry has been to attack me as a past Greens candidate. They neglect to report my qualifications to speak on this.
In playing the man and failing to address the evidence, they fail their own request for an adult conversation on nuclear energy.
Dr Margaret Beavis OAM MBBS FRACGP MPH is a former GP. She teaches at Melbourne University and has lectured on nuclear issues to MPH students. She is vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War