So nuclear power plants don\’t cause cancer then

So says the scientific report into it all.

And just look at the comments section: outright denial of reality all over the place.

It\’s weird how science gets used in certain quarters.

It\’s scientifically proven that we face resource constraints, scientifically proven that we\’ve peak oil, scientifically proven that there\’s climate change: but when it\’s scientifically proven that a cherished prejudice isn\’t true then bollocks to science, eh?

8 comments on “So nuclear power plants don\’t cause cancer then

  1. The comments are interesting, but typcal. I haven’t seen the study, but I’m willing to bet it provides all the data and supplementary information in such a way that the conclusions can be checked and contested by other researchers, because that’s the way science works. These people didn’t sit around in a windowless room for months wondering how they could spin the line, they colloected and analysed huge quantities of data in order to find an answer to the question they were asked. And they did it transparently, because otherwise it would be worthless.

    No, I haven’t posted this at the Guardian. There wouldn’t be much point, would there.

  2. Now I have seen the report, and it does indeed include all the data they worked with. I am not competent to evaluate it, but plenty of people are, and they have the necessary information to call it bollocks, if they think that’s what it is.

  3. A couple of gems from the report:
    Socio-economic status is a better marker for risk of leukaemia than proximity to a nuclear plant.
    One of the biggest clusters of leukaemia cases is next to a nuclear plant … that hasn’t been built yet.
    I can see the headlines now:
    UNIVERSITY EDUCATION CAUSES CANCER – SHOCK
    and
    PLANNING PERMISSION “TOXIC WASTE” – REPORT

  4. Years ago, someone at the Beeb did a brilliant report on cancer clusters near military installations – scary maps, the lot. Then the wag revealed that the military installations were all Norman and Roman. I don’t suppose the modern Beeb would let that through.

  5. The other thing to note is that this biz involves two religions – the anti-nuclear faith and the Great Cancer Superstition.

  6. Indeed, not nuclear. So now surely it’s caused by radio and micro waves. And overhead electric wires. And your neighbour’s wi-fi network.

  7. Years ago someone did a study and found that there were leukaemia clusters near some nuclear power stations and stirred up the tabloids who made headlines. Then a statistician pointed out that there were *fewer* such clusters than you would expect if the clusters were randomly distributed. No headlines.
    Some of the Guardian readers look as if they read those tabloid headlines but not the statistical analysis that refuted them.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.