In the grandiose and not so noble tradition of Big Tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels' climate change denial theater, the world nuclear industry and its pet governments keep resisting the implications of epidemiological studies that have repeatedly and overwhelmingly demonstrated an increased incidence of childhood leukemias in populations living near operating nuclear power plants. The "debate" has been going on since the 1980s, and has generated more scientific studies and articles than any other area of public health toxicology (i.e., asbestos, lead, tobacco smoke). More than 70% of the studies over those 30+ years demonstrate increases in leukemia incidence along with clear associations with nearby nukes. Per Korblein and Fairlie, 2012 [Int J Cancer 131: 2970-2971], that amounted to a "statistically significant" 37% increase in childhood leukemias within 5 km of almost all nuclear power plants in the UK, Germany, France and Switzerland.
Now, it's not like nukes and their pet government regulators haven't known since long before this issue was ever public that pregnant women, infants and young children are more sensitive to the harmful effects of radiation exposure than the 'model' healthy 20-something adult male. They only deny it whenever a new damning study comes out and gains public attention. It turns out that the public is not very comfortable with who gets sacrificed when governments and industries play statistical cost-benefit games. I have previously described this practice as "Premeditated Random Murder," but it's looking like the 'lambs' being sacrificed to the nuclear industry aren't nearly as random as they'd like for us all to believe.
Dr. Ian Fairlie, a radiation biologist in England, published a paper in March of this year in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity (pay wall) on the subject. Fairlie offers the gist of that work on his blog:
So the matter is now beyond question, ie there's a very clear association between increased child leukemias and proximity to NPPs. The remaining question is its cause(s).
The problem in assigning cause for the well documented association is that the nuclear industry and its pet governments have long been providing dose estimates to the public surrounding their plants that are 10,000 times too low to explain the clearly observed and often documented increased risks. Fairlie's published paper shows that the discrepancy can be explained if one presumes that the increased risk arises due to fetal exposures in utero, who are then born "pre-leukemic" and have their condition diagnoses within a few years of birth.
Others who have had experience with what really gets released from nuclear plants and when would suggest that while in utero exposure may indeed have this predisposing effect on developing fetuses, it's also just as likely that the nukes are flat out lying [again, still] about how much radiation and radioactive contamination the neighbors are actually being exposed to. The government/industry likes to use statistical sleight of mind to average chronic low level doses on an annual basis, diluting the smaller numbers of people living within ~3-5 miles of a plant with larger numbers of people who live farther away, and modeling their risk estimates on that 'ideal' 20-something adult male. Worse, the true doses are not evenly spread over time. Rather, they are higher at certain times in the operating cycle, thereby representing higher doses that occur on a semi-regular basis following sudden scrams, refueling outages and as a result of leaks that are allowed to continue unabated until the next planned outage, which is often months or years down the road. So long as the total amount is at or under the total annual limit (where those exist) - according to the utility's own records which they are allowed by the NRC to keep without oversight - the regulators are happy. The statistical averaging works well to absolve the industry from having to do necessary maintenance in a timely manner or limit their daily releases by underestimating the actual risks by as much as 10,000.
The curious (and able) can check out the references attached at the bottom of Fairlie's linked blog post, and read more about his work in the post Childhood Leukemias Near Nuclear Power Stations: 482 downloads. In that post Fairlie mentions the fact that the National Research Council [sic, it's the National Academy of Sciences here in the US] is soon to launch a study into childhood leukemias near US nuclear plants, which may help explain why his paper has generated so much interest at this time. I have known about the proposed US government study for a couple of years through ongoing communications with epidemiologists and radiation experts participating in the early phases. There is not much hope among them that this will be anything more than just another pro-nuclear whitewash.
Still, given the interest in Fairlie's most recent paper, perhaps the NAS will at least realize that their 'usual' whitewash techniques aren't going to suffice anymore to placate the public's concerns. In the wake of Fukushima people are paying much more attention than they ever have. Re-examinations of the cost-benefit analyses in other countries whose childhood leukemia increases were well documented before Fukushima and whose citizens now understand the much wider risks since Fukushima, have led to planned phase-outs of nukes over the next 15 years or so, and the immediate decommissioning of reactor plants of the same design as Daiichi's. Of which the US boasts 23, all past their due dates and all still operating anyway. A truthful study of increased leukemia rates near US nukes may well lead to the same sort of action here. Which will free up a lot of government money that could go toward expansion of renewables and modernization of our antiquated grid(s).
We can always hope, at any rate. Ultimately it is the public that is expected to suffer the bulk of serious damages caused by this industry, and if the public understands just how much they are expected to suffer they could very well decide the risks are too high. Lifting the nuclear shroud of insular secrecy and cutting through the half-century plus wall of deceptions and lies would be a good thing, even in an age of governmental/industrial willingness to kill other people's children wholesale. Eventually those other people are likely to start making demands that governments will be unable to dismiss so lightly. It's about damned time.