The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

New study links nuclear sites to cancer

Saturday, Dec 07 2013

A Euro MP has called on the Government to release figures after a new study suggested people living near nuclear power stations stood a high risk of developing cancer.

Radiation expert and independent researcher for Green Audit Dr Chris Busby found that children in Chepstow, south Wales, were 11 times more likely to develop myeloid leukaemia than the national average.

Chepstow is just five miles from Oldbury nuclear power station on the banks of the River Severn, which has been found to contain high levels of radioactive particles.

South West MEP Michael Holmes, who commissioned Dr Busby’s report, said: “It is imperative that Health Minister Alan Milburn releases data on all cancer incidence down to ward levels as a matter of grave public concern.

“How many more clusters will have to be discovered before this government recognises that its existing models do not address the environmental causes of cancer, particularly the regular, permitted radioactive discharges from nuclear power stations such as Oldbury?

“It’s possible the authorities know this is a much bigger threat then they are letting the public know – that’s why they don’t let the figures out.

“If the data Dr Busby had access to is correct and his mapping is correct it casts grave doubt on the view that nuclear power is safe.”

Myeloid leukaemia is a very rare form of cancer which is strongly associated with radiation.

The report shows that three cases of the rare cancer were discovered in children up to the age of four between 1974 and 1990 in Chepstow, compared to the national average of 0.27.

It also shows children in Chepstow run a higher risk of developing all cancers at 3.54 times the national average.

Campaigners believe the findings are comparable with the Sellafield leukaemia cluster which was highlighted in the 1990s.

The study uses data gathered by the Wales Cancer Registry.

Dr Busby pushed for the same data to be released from the South Western Cancer Registry to find out if the incidence of cancer is as high on the English side of the River Severn, but said he was refused on the grounds of patient confidentiality.

He said: “This discovery begs for the immediate release of data for the English side of the river to give the complete picture, especially as Bristol is only eight miles from Oldbury and could be blighted.”

Green Audit says it is an independent research consultancy serving the environmental movement.

Anti-nuclear campaigner and co-ordinator of pressure group Stop Hinkley, Jim Duffy described the findings as a “public health scandal” as three million people live within 35 miles of the Oldbury plant.

He said the study proved there was an “overwhelming link” between radiation levels around nuclear power plants and incidence of cancer.

BNFL, which runs Oldbury, was reported to have dismissed Dr Busby’s findings.


December 7, 2013 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Your one verifiable reference (“The study uses data gathered by the Wales Cancer Registry”) does not include information about myeloid leukaemia. It does mention total leukemia but that, contrary to your assumptions, is indicative of a genetic fault and not an environmentally derived mutation.

    Also the reports I looked over from the Wales Cancer Registry did not include a geographical subset that could be applied to such a narrow range.

    If there is a report that I missed which supports any of your speculations please reference them now and in any future articles you may publish.


    Comment by greynanook | December 10, 2013 | Reply

    • It has shown convincingly that around nuclear facilities up to 40km away, newborn suffer from significant increased genetic damage. E.g.:

      And research showed that such increased genetic damage does cause increased health risks such as leukemia. E.g.
      E.g. Sellafield workers (nuclear wast store) got 39% more boys than girls (DNA of male sperm is smaller, so more male sperm survives in increased radiation environment):
      And of course those children suffer from significant (significant despite their low numbers!) levels of:
      cancer (a.o. leukemia):

      Comment by Bas Gresnigt | February 23, 2019 | Reply

  2. Your article which has been entitled as “new” is merely a rehashing of information published in 2001 by Dr. Busby from a data set he obtained in 1995 from the Wales Cancer Registry.

    Please if you have not already read the response from the Wales Cancer Registry which provides a thorough response to all of the claims made by Dr. Busby.

    Click to access PartI.pdf

    Comment by greynanook | December 10, 2013 | Reply

    • many thanks for the link greynanook..
      I am not sure why the mail decided to publish this bit of info from Dr Busby.. there will always be disputes as to the methodology and use of statistics.. However, the whole sorry saga can be viewed at .. personally busbies preliminary fndings were interesting and we should bear in mind NO corporation will fund similar studies.. the kikk study was also interesting and came to similar findings as dr busby.. cancer stats in the uk are difficult to get.. so my money is on the more transparent side.. and that would be dr busby..
      the uk is one of the least transparent countries and should NOT be dabbling in nuclear materials..
      i reference todays guardian article asking for the military industrial complex to stop using citizens data to make profits..
      if the uk cant respect others privacy, how can we trust their figures and data on nuclear information??
      i might point out that wales is also embroiled in a child abuse/state kidnapping case as we speak (social services) and i reference lots of good investigations from UKCOLUMN of portsmouth..
      good to see theDaily Mail trying to cover nuclear matters but they have no decent science journalists to dig deeper than a qoute from busby.. but its a good start.. we hope to see ian fairlie and john large next (and we expect the medical/nuclear/military to refute their findings with highly funded and specific peer reviewed articles..

      Comment by arclight2011part2 | December 10, 2013 | Reply

Leave a Reply to greynanook Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: