Incidence of cancer subject of study

Press, 3 November 1983, Page 14

Incidence of cancer subject of study

• ■: ■ ' NZPA - / London Ah . investigation has started into the incidence of cancer among people living near nuclear stations, “The Times” has reported. The pattern of the illness before and after the build- ; ing of plants will be studied and comparisons made with' similar populations hot living/near. nuclear installations. ■ /a// / The study, to be conducted by the Protection Board and the Epidemiological Research Unit at Oxford University, will not be completed before next . Bit the results of the study may be the only way toresolve the controversy over, the number of cases of leukaemia in children living near the nuclear fuel reprocessingplant at Sellafield, i

formerly Windscale, in Cumbria. Accusations that the incidence of leukaemia ris be-’ tween'five and 10 times higher than . the national average among children in ' three villages dose to Sellafield, 'are .contained in the findings of i new report that is the basis of a documentary television programme shown on • Independent Television. The allegation that radioactive pollution is the cause of higher than average figures is rejected by British Nuclear Fuels.

■ Mr . Peter. Mummery, director ~ for health and safety for the company, said the documentary bases its accusations on its own unvalidated findings.” But the evidence gathered for the documentary was

examined by a leading epidemiologist in that field, Professor Edward Radford, from Pittsburgh University in the United States.

Professor Radford supported the catastrophic interpretation of the figures when; taken in conjunction with the measurements of radioactivity in silt and house dust from Sellafield.

British Nuclear Fuels does not dispute the existence of low levels of contamination of radioactive substances. But it, said, “As-

suming the highest figures quoted for levels of radioactivity to be correct, children would have to eat 201 b (9kg) of dust a year or sit in one tiny spot on a muddy estuary for 500 hours in a year before permitted limits would be reached.”