11

One man who believes that nuclear energy is bad for nature told me that living near to a nuclear power plant causes cancer.

I visited one nuclear power plant and they confirmed the words of our physics teacher that the atomic energy is good for nature in comparison to car gases and other types of power plants.

But I'd like to see some article that supports or denies the hypothesis that living near to a nuclear power plant can cause cancer and if so, how high the risk is in comparison with other environmental factors causing cancer.

I believe, there is higher risk of cancer when living near to thermal power station and the energy gain is much smaller in opposite to nuclear power station.

Mad Scientist
  • 43,643
  • 20
  • 173
  • 192
xralf
  • 729
  • 1
  • 5
  • 12
  • 1
    Living near Chernobyl was obviously bad for you. – Zano Jan 23 '12 at 15:26
  • 1
    @Zano The question is concerned with nuclear power plants where there wasn't a disaster and is working without technical problems. – xralf Jan 23 '12 at 16:11
  • @xralf, to nitpick, causing cancer in people living in the neighborhood wouldn't constitute "working without problems". ;-) – Zano Jan 23 '12 at 16:14
  • 3
    Comparing the environmental impact of nuclear power plants and car exhaust is largely irrelevant. Very broadly, nuclear power plants don't replace crude-oil based cars. They replace coal-based power stations. (Before some of you crawl all over this with exceptions - electric cars, hydroelectric schemes, gas-based generators, wind-power, solar-power etc.: I am talking very broadly.) – Oddthinking Jan 23 '12 at 16:26
  • 1
    @Oddthinking Cars are everythere. So, if we can make comparison to something common it's quite useful but not necessary for good answer. – xralf Jan 23 '12 at 16:32
  • 3
    Ants and flowers are everywhere too, still not relevant. Comparing with alternatives to nuclear power would be relevant, like for instance the most common alternative: coal plants. – Zano Jan 23 '12 at 16:43
  • 3
    xralf, if the country's nuclear power plants were more polluting than the country's cars, that would mean... nothing - we can't replace the nuclear power plants with cars. If the country's cars were more polluting than the power plants, that would mean... nothing - we can't replace the cars with nuclear power plants. – Oddthinking Jan 23 '12 at 16:52
  • 1
    xralf, @Zano is quite right. One interesting point: some coal ashes contain enough uranium that they're [using it](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf30.html) as a resource for "uranium mining"! – Hendrik Vogt Jan 23 '12 at 16:56
  • 2
    @Zano You can live near nuclear power plant and you can live near place with high car traffic and still can compare the risks of cancer. This comparison is possible (though difficult). There is no limit. If you want to compare it to place with many flowers. It's just comparison nothing more. Here `alternatives` are other factors causing certain type of cancer (not only energy alternatives) – xralf Jan 23 '12 at 16:58
  • 1
    @xralf, you don't seem to get the meaning of the word *relevant*. We are generally interested in comparisons that actually *mean* something. While it is true that you can compare risk and effects of singing in a choir vs drinking bleach *it would not say anything useful*. – Zano Jan 23 '12 at 20:13
  • @Zano You're wrong, I know the meaning of the word `relevant`. Now I can ask who are `we`? I asked the question because it was relevant for me. Stop arguing, the comparison was not so important for me and the question was answered and the answer is sufficient. [Here](http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y)'s good place to continue. – xralf Jan 23 '12 at 20:33
  • 2
    It always amuses me that the Coal power industry releases *much* more radioactive material into the environment every year than the nuclear industry ever has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements – Mark Booth Jan 24 '12 at 18:11
  • 1
    The notability of this question has been challenged. While it is not explicitly stated, the possible link between leukaemia and living near nuclear power plants has been claimed for many years - at least as far back as a [1984 report by Sir Douglas Black](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/23/newsid_4521000/4521673.stm), making this claim notable. – Oddthinking Feb 01 '12 at 13:26

1 Answers1

20

When it comes to childhood cancers, the answer is No, nuclear power plants are not related..

The Swiss did a major study looking for the risks of childhood cancers and leukaemia amongst children who lived near nuclear power plants.

Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: a census-based cohort study Ben D Spycher, Martin Feller, Marcel Zwahlen, Martin Röösli, Nicolas X von der Weid, Heinz Hengartner, Matthias Egger, Claudia E Kuehni

We used a cohort approach to examine whether residence near nuclear power plants (NPPs) was associated with leukaemia or any childhood cancer in Switzerland.

They followed 2,925 children over a period exceeding two decades.

They divided them up into <5 km, 5–10 km and 10–15 km and >15km from the nearest NPP.

This nationwide cohort study found little evidence of an association between residence near NPPs and the risk of leukaemia or any childhood cancer.

This is also written up by World Nuclear News.

In the report, they discuss some of the previous studies that did find a link, starting with an English report in 1984.

They address some of the issues with those reports - particularly:

  • Correlation doesn't equal causation. There may be other reasons why cancers might be found to cluster around NPPs. (An example not in the study: Major factories (including NPPs) tend to be built in cheap areas which may be correlated to poor health.)

The paper does highlight (with references) that some studies "found an increased risk also at places where NPPs were planned but not built, concluding that factors other than radiation might be responsible."

  • Poor methodologies and sample sizes were used in other studies, e.g. from Germany and Finland.

So, there have been mixed results from studies, but the Swiss study seems to be more statistically sound than the earlier attempts, and despite its large size, it found no evidence for nuclear power plants causing childhood cancers.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • Thank you. It seems that the man could be partially right and new studies should be conducted. – xralf Jan 23 '12 at 17:36
  • 3
    I read it as "He was partially right, based on limited preliminary data, but new studies *have* been conducted (3,000 children, 24 years!). – Oddthinking Jan 23 '12 at 17:50
  • 1
    See interesting slight related question [here](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1022/2192) – Benjol Mar 22 '12 at 10:01