AT A GLANCE:

 

1. General health effects of low-level ionising radiation
2. Low-level ionising radiation health effects on the Severn Estuary
3. A preliminary report for the charity Children with Cancer UK highlights the dangers of low level ionising radiation
4. Childhood leukaemias twice as likely near nuclear power stations - French report
5. National cancer studies near US nuclear reactors must be conducted before any new expansion, says report
6. Pete Wilkinson, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK pioneer, explains the impact of nuclear reactors on human health

 

IN DETAIL:

 

1. HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW LEVEL RADIATION

 

In the day to day running of a Nuclear Power Station, radioisotopes are released into the air and the river or sea water used for cooling. There is a proven link between increased numbers of cancers and leukaemias in the local population close to nuclear power stations, attributable to this increased level of radiation. Read on for details…

 

How low level radiation causes serious disease. During the expected 40 year life of Nuclear reactors radioactive isotopes of low level radioactive waste will be discharged into our environment 24/7, not only in the river but also into the atmosphere . This is known as LDLLR – Low Dose Low level radiation 

 

Once in the river it is intended to be flushed into the estuary and then into the ocean. This is the so-called ' high -tech ' solution to ‘dispose’ of this waste. In reality however, many of these radioisotopes will get trapped locally in river sediment and on estuary mud banks. At low tide and in drying periods, during warmer weather, radioactive particles invisible to the eye, that cannot be felt, smelt or tasted, will become re-suspended in the air we breathe and therefore are able to easily gain access to inside our bodies.

 

The nuclear industry and the pro-nuclear lobby mislead the public into believing that low level alpha and beta particles are safe because they cannot easily penetrate the skin and therefore cannot irradiate blood, tissue, organs and bone. But this conveniently ignores the fact that we all have to breathe to survive... 

 

...If the air we inhale contains even very minute particles of low level alpha and beta radioisotopes invisible to the eye, when taken into our lungs they enter the blood stream and can reach all major organs of the body. 

 

Internal Emitters. If they lodge in the blood, lungs, tissue, organs and bones of our bodies, they continuously irradiate us from inside. While apologists for nuclear power will repeat the mantra that the radioactivity is no more than that received from a medical X-ray, once lodged in the body as "internal emitters", these deadly particles continue to irradiate us non-stop, leading to cancers, other serious medical conditions and premature death. It is like a part of your body being under a medical X-ray machine 24/7 for the rest of your life.

 

A table of just some of the radioisotopes discharged under licence from nuclear power plants: 

 

 

Isotope	Half-life	Type	Notes
Caesium - 137	30 yrs	Beta	Causal link to premature heart lesions and deaths in children following Chernobyl accident in 1986.[Bandashevsky 2000]
Strontium - 90	28 yrs	Beta	Incorporated into bone and causes bone cancer - all of us already have this in our bones from global nuclear weapons testing fall out.
Iodine - 131 & 132	2 hrs	Beta	An early indicator of fall out-induced thyroid cancer
Carbon - 14	5,730 yrs	Beta	Carbon is common to all life so this isotope is a major environmental hazard.

 

Targets. While there are International and National targets for the limits on radiation allowed to be released, in reality Nuclear Power Stations are just asked to keep the releases As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). 

 

A report from Berkeley and Oldbury nuclear power stations for the Site Stakeholders in 2008 shows how ALARA is applied to airborne and water discharges. Some of the graphs show alarming peaks of high releases of radioactivity over the years. A PDF of the full report can be seen or downloaded here. Many of the graphs show worrying spikes of radioactive releases over the lifetime of the two power stations.

 

Of particular interest is page 29, Radioactivity on tacky shades  (instruments that collect data on radionuclides present in the atmosphere) located in the immediate area. They show spikes of 50, 75, and 100 Becquerels between 1970 and 1981, which should be compared with the fallout from Chernobyl in 1986 which was no more than 3 or 4 Becquerels. The Chernobyl fallout on the UK was so severe that it was only in 2012, 26 years later, that lamb bred on the Welsh hills was allowed to be sold - previously it was too radioactive and the lambs were required to be slaughtered. Even allowing for the possible disparity of rainfall on the Severn valley after Chernobyl compared to the Welsh hills, this is an alarming statistic.BBC news.

 

Interestingly, tacky shades are no longer used by the nuclear industry and they now use continuous monitoring systems. But where these are, what they monitor and how they are used is very opaque.

 

2. LOW LEVEL IONISING RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS ON THE SEVERN ESTUARY.

 

In the mid 1980 a cluster of childhood leukaemias was found in the Lydney area, opposite Berkeley and Oldbury Nuclear Power Stations. There were 7 cases of leukaemia in young children several of whom had strong links to the River Severn as their fathers were fishermen or worked very close to the river. Epimediologist John Urquhart proved that the cluster could not have been caused at random but that there had to be an environmental cause.

 

 The nuclear industry claim that clusters around power stations are due to an influx of new workers to an erstwhile rural area. But that is certainly not the reason in this case, as the Forest of Dean’s population was not affected by the building of the power stations, being on the other side of the river.

 

 A study around Hinkley power station on the Severn Estuary also revealed some disturbing facts: in the 6 years up to 2001 they found 3 times as many deaths in children under 1 year as would normally be expected. In all there were 18 deaths – statistically significant according to a report based on Government statistics. This followed a period of illegal radioactive discharges from Hinkley – for which the Power Station was fined. 

 

 Dr Derek Pheby, former Head of South West Cancer Registry said on “Inside Out”, local TV: 

 

“The report raised some serious causes for concern. It does show an increase in infant death in proximity to the plant. It does show a dose response relationship – ie the further from the plant you get the fewer the increased deaths there were. I think this is something that can't be ignored. It doesn’t actually prove anything, but it does raise some very serious questions which need to be investigated more deeply. And we do know that radiation discharge has been associated with cancer in other locations. We do know there was a discharge of radioactive materials from Hinkley Point before which could be associated with this and I don’t think it can be ignored".

 

Michael Meacher, as Environment Minister, set up the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, an advisory body which looked into the large amount of evidence showing that releasing radioactivity into the environment may be far more dangerous than was previously thought. He believed “The true effects of radioactive discharges must be resolved before any commitment to new nuclear power stations is made.” Michael Meacher was sacked from his post by Tony Blair in 2003 and no more work was done on that by the Government, despite overwhelming evidence.

 

LDLLR, according to Dr John Gofman, former advisor to the Atomic Energy Commission, is “conducting a war against humanity".

 

3. A 2020 SCIENTIFIC REPORT, Radiation and reason: The impact of science on a culture of confusion, For Children With Cancer Uk by Authors Richard Bramhall and Pete Wilkinson, argues:

 

"There is clear evidence that releasing some forms of radioactivity to the environment has unexpectedly large health consequences although the doses involved appear to be minuscule. Examination of the concept of "radiation dose" reveals that its administrative convenience and apparent precision mask a complex and poorly understood area of science. This demands a thorough forensic review which should be regarded as an urgent priority since a number of policy areas including waste management, the management of contaminated land, and nuclear weapons and power generation are likely to be significantly affected."

 

If you would like to study this important 82 page report in detail, you can download it here

 

INCIDENTALLY, THE REPORT CONTAINS A VERY USEFUL GUIDE TO THE TERMS USED IN THE STUDY OF IONISING RADIATION

 

4. FRENCH HEALTH EXPERTS FIND CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIAS TWICE AS LIKELY NEAR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS says a ResearchGate report. The incidence of leukaemia is twice as high in children living close to French nuclear power plants as in those living elsewhere in the country, a study by French health and nuclear safety experts has found.

 

5. NATIONAL CANCER STUDIES NEAR US NUCLEAR REACTORS MUST BE CONDUCTED BEFORE ANY NEW EXPANSION, SAYS REPORT

 

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists copyright 2025. Registered 501(c)(3) with EIN 36-2136497 says that No national study of the health risks posed by existing US nuclear reactors has been conducted since the late 1980s, despite many reported cases of cancer and other diseases. It states that there will be no safe and publicly accepted expansion of nuclear power without an informed and transparent discussion over past and current health risks from US reactors to the population.

 

“These ambitious expansion plants are being proposed with little to no regard for the risks to human health from living and working at nearby nuclear reactors. Many industry leaders and government officials proudly claim nuclear power to be an “emission-free” energy source, but they ignore the health risks that routine radioactive emissions from reactors pose to the public, including cancer and other diseases. To address these claims, a new national study of cancer trends around the 94 existing nuclear reactors (nearly half of which are now 45 years old or more must be conducted before any further expansion of nuclear power in the United States.”

You can read the original article here.

 

 

6. PETE WILKINSON EXPLAINS THE HEALTH IMPACT OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

 

In a 2024 article for Yorkshire Bylines, Pete Wilkinson, co-founder of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK, who died in January 2025, explains the impact of nuclear reactors, which contain plutonium and uranium, on human health:

 

"Particulates of plutonium and uranium, invisible to the naked eye, produce energetic and highly interactive emissions that, while presenting little danger when outside the body, can present a serious internal hazard when inhaled or ingested. They represent a small ‘dose’ but can have a disproportionate effect on health if the body doesn’t manage to rid itself of the particle, which will impart its energy to a tiny number of cells in the body, massively increasing its potential for harm. The reality is actually ‘small dose, large risk’, the opposite of the LNT principle [Linear No Threshold]. It is perhaps no surprise that neither government nor its agencies wish to engage in fact-based debate on the issues: any recognition that critics of LNT have a case would require a fundamental review of nuclear discharges, their safety and the number of people qualifying for compensation."

You can read the full article here.

 

STAND has long argued that the nuclear industry's assertion that living near a nuclear power station is the same in terms of radiation dose of having "one x-ray a year" is a false analogy. If a radioactive particle, too small to be seen with the naked eye, becomes lodged in the lungs or gut or elsewhere in the body it is like having an x-ray on that part of the body 24/7/365!