• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 813 0

effects of nuclear testing, uranium mining, radioactive waste burial and all the phases of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production,” asserts Greenpeace International on its website, in a statement fairly typical of those made by antinuclear campaigners.36 Given that we all carry radioactive elements like strontium-90 in our bones and teeth thanks to atomic weapons tests and other uses of nuclear technology since the dawn of the nuclear age in the 1950s, it does indeed seem reasonable to be concerned about possible health effects of these, as with other potentially dangerous man-made substances. So what does the science say?

First, we need to look at the sources of the radiation doses received by humans and other animals, both natural and artificial, in order to give some context to the following discussion. Background radiation permeates the environment, being continually emitted by naturally occurring radioactive elements like uranium, thorium, and potassium. Radiation is also received from the sun, and cosmic radiation from the wider universe. These natural sources can vary enormously: In the U.K., inhabitants of Cornwall are exposed to higher levels of radioactivity because of radon (a product of radioactively decayed uranium) emitted from granitic rocks. The U.K. Health Protection Agency sets an annual dose limit of 1 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation, yet annual doses in some homes from naturally occurring radon can approach 100 millisieverts—a hundred times the prescribed safe dose.37 The largest amounts of artificially derived radiation, on the other hand, come from medical exposures like x-rays—totaling annually about 0.4 mSv for each British person on average. In comparison, fallout from nuclear weapons tests totals 0.006 mSv, while contamination from civil nuclear power is lower still—even someone living outside the fence of a British nuclear power station would typically receive only 0.001 mSv, three orders of magnitude below natural background levels. Ironically enough, nuclear power stations could not be built in much of Cornwall, because the fenceline legal radiation limits would be breached due to the presence of naturally radioactive granite.

Ionizing radiation causes damage to the DNA of cells in both animals and plants, but because radiation is a constant presence in the environment living organisms have evolved cellular repair mechanisms that constantly act to rebuild DNA and reverse any damage. Even so, one would expect rates of cancer and other ill-effects from radiation to vary by region between places where the received doses are highest. The science says otherwise, however. One study of Ramsar, Iran, where radium in hot springs delivers a hefty dose of natural radiation to the local inhabitants—a hundred times that permitted for radiation workers in nuclear power stations—found no difference between them and people living in more normal areas.38 A similar 15-year study of residents living in a high-background-radiation area in Yangjiang, China, also found no increase in cancer risk.39 On the other hand, there does seem to be a small statistical link between rates of naturally occurring radon and lung cancer, though the risk is many times higher for smokers.40

Compared with these natural doses, the radiation releases from nuclear power stations are typically very low. A single 10-hour flight would in most cases yield a higher exposure to the average citizen than a whole year’s worth of the increased radiation now in the environment due to civil nuclear power. This makes claims by antinuclear activists that nuclear power stations are associated with “cancer clusters” unlikely to be true, if only because the radiation increases purported to cause the extra cancers are so small. This issue has been studied exhaustively by scientists, and the vast majority of studies have found no link between nuclear power stations and cancer incidence in the local populations of nearly a dozen countries from France to Sweden.41

The occasional study does seem to find a link, however, and these—rather like the