Unique health survey implicates Hinkley (Nuke Power)
several, a3m posted this | 04.08.2002 19:58
A group of committed parents has conducted a unique
doorstep survey of its own community and discovered
appalling levels of cancer just five miles from Hinkley Point nuclear power station.
doorstep survey of its own community and discovered
appalling levels of cancer just five miles from Hinkley Point nuclear power station.
A report
analysing the responses of some 1,500 people shows
cervical and kidney cancer at over five times the
national average with four times the average leukaemia
diagnoses and double the national rate for breast
cancer.
The questionnaire survey was conducted by a group of
Burnham residents called 'Parents Concerned About
Hinkley' and analysed by Dr Chris Busby who, over the
past two years, has found high cancer mortality in the
town. This differs from all previous studies as it
examines the number of people reporting cancer in a
questionnaire.
The survey confirms Dr Busby's findings published two
years ago (1) showing that breast cancer deaths in
North Burnham electoral ward were double the national
average. It also exposes other high cancer rates not
available from the Office of National Statistics from
which he drew his earlier conclusions.
Dr Busby said, "This is the first citizens' health
survey of this sort in the UK and I applaud the group
for their very hard work. They were forced to go down
this road as the Health Authority refused to publish
its figures. Now we see a picture confirming my fears
that Hinkley discharges are responsible for severe
health problems here. All the epidemiology points to
that conclusion."
Dr Busby's work has been testing the hypothesis that
radioactive particles discharged into the sea are
deposited on the local mudbanks, blown downwind and
inhaled by residents on a chronic basis, triggering
the cancer. This theory is supported by the survey
which shows over half of those diagnosed with cancer
have hobbies involving the sea, eg water-sports or
digging for bait on the beach. Out of ninety five
people with cancer going back to 1989, forty-nine
(52%) took part in sea connected activities.
Fourteen of the cancer group had outdoor jobs (15%)
and twelve ate local fish or shell-fish regularly
(thirteen per cent). Twenty per cent (20.7%) of the
cancer sufferers were smokers, which is less than the
twenty seven per cent average of smokers in the UK
('Action on Smoking' figures) or the 35 per cent of
hospital cancer patients who are smokers.
The survey sponsors, Stop Hinkley, are currently
campaigning against a new nuclear power station
proposed for Hinkley and together with 'Parents
Concerned About Hinkley' held an opinion poll in
Burnham in January on the subject. Eighty three per
cent of Burnham residents said they did not want
another nuclear plant.
In a report from the DTI published in the New
Scientist last week, the government has suggested
compensating local communities for 'perceived
disbenefits' of new nuclear build. Jim Duffy, the
group's coordinator said, "We are certainly witnessing
some severe disbenefits of living under a nuclear
power station and the government should surely
compensate these individuals and their families for
shortening their lives. But a new power station must
be completely off the agenda now. People prefer their
health to any amount of money"
Jim is also concerned about the stance of local health
officials. He had asked Somerset Health Authority at
the start of the survey how many cases of leukaemia
existed in Burnham and was told 'none' but the survey
revealed four cases. He said, "Our distrust of the
Health Authority cannot be overstated."
Dr Busby was recently shocked when, using the Data
Protection Act, he uncovered internal health authority
papers with Burnham cancer statistics. In an email,
the health authority described a 'quick and dirty'
study they had put together but had made a basic error
leading to lower the apparent cancer risks. The
population figures for the year 2000 were wrongly
applied to a ten year study that ended in 1998. This
according to Dr Busby falsely deflated the apparent
cancer incidence due to the increase of both the
general population and the elderly population giving a
higher expectation of cancer.(2)"
He said, "The authorities now should meet with me and
agree the terms of a study in which all parties can
have confidence."
Dr Busby will announce the full findings of the survey
and its implications in a public meeting at the
Princess Hall in Burnham-on-Sea at 7.30pm on July
18th.
A demonstration will take place at 11am on the
Saturdays either side of the public meeting on Burnham
Beach to draw attention to health risks from the
polluted shoreline.
Jim Duffy 01984 632109 M: 07968 975804 E:
stophinkley@aol.com
Stop Hinkley Coordinator
Chris Busby 01970 639315 E: christo@cato5.demon.co.uk
Green Audit
Julie Gilfoyle 01278 794788 M: 07971 744372
Parents Concerned About Hinkley
Table 1: (correct on 11th July '02 in advance of the
final report but subject to updating)
These preliminary results show cancer INCIDENCE not
mortality. This gives a tighter correspondence to
environmental causes and confirms the findings of
local cancer mortality studies Dr Busby has undertaken
over the past two years (1).
Cancer Findings Nos expected Relative
Risk+ Significance*
Cancer incidence in a six year period from 1996-2001:
Kidney cancer 5 cases 1.26
3.96 poisson .01
Cervical cancer 3 cases 0.54
5.6 poisson .01
Breast cancer 16/17 cases 8.1
1.97 / 2.1 poisson .004
Leukaemia 4 cases 1.46
2.73 poisson .05
Cancer incidence over four years: 1998-2001
Kidney cancer 5 cases 0.84
5.95 p .001
Cervical cancer 2 cases 0.36
5.6 p .01
Breast cancer 9 cases 5.4
1.7 p .08
Leukaemia 4 cases 0.96
4.09 p .02
+ Relative risk or multiplier of national average, eg
RR 5.6 means 5.6 times the national average or more
accurately, times the expected number, weighted for
age and other factors.
* Statistical significance is proportionally higher
with a lower poisson factor, eg a poisson factor of
.01 means 1 chance in 100 of this occurrence randomly.
P .001 is one chance in a thousand.
All the above figures are statistically significant.
Table 2:
Figures for All Cancer diagnoses: The 'doorstep
survey' showed a reduction going back in time,
probably due to the death of those diagnosed in
earlier years or their commitment to in-patient health
care. For this reason the study examines only the last
six years in detail.
Year: 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996
1995 1994 1993 1992 1991
Cases: 15 12 8 8 10
7 6 4 2 4
3
1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1996-1971
1 3 0 3 1
4
Expected cases per year: 11.
(1) Dr Chris Busby, Breast Cancer and Proximity to
Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station, April 2000. Green
Audit, Aberystwyth.
(2) Call for fax copies of Health Authority internal
email and regional press coverage.
analysing the responses of some 1,500 people shows
cervical and kidney cancer at over five times the
national average with four times the average leukaemia
diagnoses and double the national rate for breast
cancer.
The questionnaire survey was conducted by a group of
Burnham residents called 'Parents Concerned About
Hinkley' and analysed by Dr Chris Busby who, over the
past two years, has found high cancer mortality in the
town. This differs from all previous studies as it
examines the number of people reporting cancer in a
questionnaire.
The survey confirms Dr Busby's findings published two
years ago (1) showing that breast cancer deaths in
North Burnham electoral ward were double the national
average. It also exposes other high cancer rates not
available from the Office of National Statistics from
which he drew his earlier conclusions.
Dr Busby said, "This is the first citizens' health
survey of this sort in the UK and I applaud the group
for their very hard work. They were forced to go down
this road as the Health Authority refused to publish
its figures. Now we see a picture confirming my fears
that Hinkley discharges are responsible for severe
health problems here. All the epidemiology points to
that conclusion."
Dr Busby's work has been testing the hypothesis that
radioactive particles discharged into the sea are
deposited on the local mudbanks, blown downwind and
inhaled by residents on a chronic basis, triggering
the cancer. This theory is supported by the survey
which shows over half of those diagnosed with cancer
have hobbies involving the sea, eg water-sports or
digging for bait on the beach. Out of ninety five
people with cancer going back to 1989, forty-nine
(52%) took part in sea connected activities.
Fourteen of the cancer group had outdoor jobs (15%)
and twelve ate local fish or shell-fish regularly
(thirteen per cent). Twenty per cent (20.7%) of the
cancer sufferers were smokers, which is less than the
twenty seven per cent average of smokers in the UK
('Action on Smoking' figures) or the 35 per cent of
hospital cancer patients who are smokers.
The survey sponsors, Stop Hinkley, are currently
campaigning against a new nuclear power station
proposed for Hinkley and together with 'Parents
Concerned About Hinkley' held an opinion poll in
Burnham in January on the subject. Eighty three per
cent of Burnham residents said they did not want
another nuclear plant.
In a report from the DTI published in the New
Scientist last week, the government has suggested
compensating local communities for 'perceived
disbenefits' of new nuclear build. Jim Duffy, the
group's coordinator said, "We are certainly witnessing
some severe disbenefits of living under a nuclear
power station and the government should surely
compensate these individuals and their families for
shortening their lives. But a new power station must
be completely off the agenda now. People prefer their
health to any amount of money"
Jim is also concerned about the stance of local health
officials. He had asked Somerset Health Authority at
the start of the survey how many cases of leukaemia
existed in Burnham and was told 'none' but the survey
revealed four cases. He said, "Our distrust of the
Health Authority cannot be overstated."
Dr Busby was recently shocked when, using the Data
Protection Act, he uncovered internal health authority
papers with Burnham cancer statistics. In an email,
the health authority described a 'quick and dirty'
study they had put together but had made a basic error
leading to lower the apparent cancer risks. The
population figures for the year 2000 were wrongly
applied to a ten year study that ended in 1998. This
according to Dr Busby falsely deflated the apparent
cancer incidence due to the increase of both the
general population and the elderly population giving a
higher expectation of cancer.(2)"
He said, "The authorities now should meet with me and
agree the terms of a study in which all parties can
have confidence."
Dr Busby will announce the full findings of the survey
and its implications in a public meeting at the
Princess Hall in Burnham-on-Sea at 7.30pm on July
18th.
A demonstration will take place at 11am on the
Saturdays either side of the public meeting on Burnham
Beach to draw attention to health risks from the
polluted shoreline.
Jim Duffy 01984 632109 M: 07968 975804 E:
stophinkley@aol.com Stop Hinkley Coordinator
Chris Busby 01970 639315 E:
christo@cato5.demon.co.uk Green Audit
Julie Gilfoyle 01278 794788 M: 07971 744372
Parents Concerned About Hinkley
Table 1: (correct on 11th July '02 in advance of the
final report but subject to updating)
These preliminary results show cancer INCIDENCE not
mortality. This gives a tighter correspondence to
environmental causes and confirms the findings of
local cancer mortality studies Dr Busby has undertaken
over the past two years (1).
Cancer Findings Nos expected Relative
Risk+ Significance*
Cancer incidence in a six year period from 1996-2001:
Kidney cancer 5 cases 1.26
3.96 poisson .01
Cervical cancer 3 cases 0.54
5.6 poisson .01
Breast cancer 16/17 cases 8.1
1.97 / 2.1 poisson .004
Leukaemia 4 cases 1.46
2.73 poisson .05
Cancer incidence over four years: 1998-2001
Kidney cancer 5 cases 0.84
5.95 p .001
Cervical cancer 2 cases 0.36
5.6 p .01
Breast cancer 9 cases 5.4
1.7 p .08
Leukaemia 4 cases 0.96
4.09 p .02
+ Relative risk or multiplier of national average, eg
RR 5.6 means 5.6 times the national average or more
accurately, times the expected number, weighted for
age and other factors.
* Statistical significance is proportionally higher
with a lower poisson factor, eg a poisson factor of
.01 means 1 chance in 100 of this occurrence randomly.
P .001 is one chance in a thousand.
All the above figures are statistically significant.
Table 2:
Figures for All Cancer diagnoses: The 'doorstep
survey' showed a reduction going back in time,
probably due to the death of those diagnosed in
earlier years or their commitment to in-patient health
care. For this reason the study examines only the last
six years in detail.
Year: 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996
1995 1994 1993 1992 1991
Cases: 15 12 8 8 10
7 6 4 2 4
3
1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1996-1971
1 3 0 3 1
4
Expected cases per year: 11.
(1) Dr Chris Busby, Breast Cancer and Proximity to
Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station, April 2000. Green
Audit, Aberystwyth.
(2) Call for fax copies of Health Authority internal
email and regional press coverage.
several, a3m posted this
