New Study on Cancers near NPPs: additional comments

 IanFairlie.org 17th July 2025, https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/new-study-on-cancers-near-npps-additional-comments/

Additional Comments on New Study on Cancers Near UK NPPs*.

The recent Davies et al study  (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 concluded that no increased cancers occur  near UK nuclear facilities. On July 16, I placed initial reservations re the above study on my website. These remain correct so may be used with confidence.

However on closer examination the study has the additional shortcomings listed below.

First, the study makes several incorrect statements. It states[1] “Our work {shows}  that the clusters of cancer identified in proximity to Sellafield and Dounreay between 1955 and 1991 are no longer present after 1991.” But if one examines their detailed Supplementary data in Table S3[2] for 1995-2016, one sees that around Dounreay, for 0-4 year old children, the SIR[3] is 1.56 for solid cancers and 1.99 for CNS tumours. Ie increases in cancer incidences. Similarly around Sellafield, for 10-14 year old children, the SIR is 1.65 for solid cancers and 1.46 for CNS tumours.  Again increased cancer incidences.

Also, on Imperial College’s website, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/266256/no-increased-risk-childhood-cancer-near/, the lead author stated “As the UK government announces a multibillion-pound investment for new nuclear energy infrastructure, our findings should provide reassurance that the historical clusters of childhood cancers reported near sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are no longer evident.”

This statement is of doubtful veracity. The study examined data only to 2016:  is it correct to assert nine years later in 2025 that the clusters are “no longer evident”?

Second, my initial comments criticised the choice of a very large 25 km radius around NPPs in which to conduct its studies.  But another methodological criticism exists. The best source of information about cancers near NPPs, the Kikk study (see below) observed cancer increases only among children near NPPs aged under 5.  Unfortunately the Davies et al study does not examine ill health in under 5 year olds near NPPs.

This study unfortunately shows that by careful manipulation of epidemiological parameters, almost any desired result, or non-result, can be achieved.

Childhood cancers near NPPs

New Study on Cancers near NPPs: additional comments

July 17, 2025

Additional Comments on New Study on Cancers Near UK NPPs*.

The recent Davies et al study  (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 concluded that no increased cancers occur  near UK nuclear facilities. On July 16, I placed initial reservations re the above study on my website. These remain correct so may be used with confidence.

However on closer examination the study has the additional shortcomings listed below.

First, the study makes several incorrect statements. It states[1] “Our work {shows}  that the clusters of cancer identified in proximity to Sellafield and Dounreay between 1955 and 1991 are no longer present after 1991.” But if one examines their detailed Supplementary data in Table S3[2] for 1995-2016, one sees that around Dounreay, for 0-4 year old children, the SIR[3] is 1.56 for solid cancers and 1.99 for CNS tumours. Ie increases in cancer incidences. Similarly around Sellafield, for 10-14 year old children, the SIR is 1.65 for solid cancers and 1.46 for CNS tumours.  Again increased cancer incidences.

Also, on Imperial College’s website, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/266256/no-increased-risk-childhood-cancer-near/, the lead author stated “As the UK government announces a multibillion-pound investment for new nuclear energy infrastructure, our findings should provide reassurance that the historical clusters of childhood cancers reported near sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are no longer evident.”

This statement is of doubtful veracity. The study examined data only to 2016:  is it correct to assert nine years later in 2025 that the clusters are “no longer evident”?

Second, my initial comments criticised the choice of a very large 25 km radius around NPPs in which to conduct its studies.  But another methodological criticism exists. The best source of information about cancers near NPPs, the Kikk study (see below) observed cancer increases only among children near NPPs aged under 5.  Unfortunately the Davies et al study does not examine ill health in under 5 year olds near NPPs.

This study unfortunately shows that by careful manipulation of epidemiological parameters, almost any desired result, or non-result, can be achieved.

Childhood cancers near NPPs

The study purports to examine the issue of childhood cancers near NPPs, but an ecological study like this is the poorest way to do so. It may be cheap and quick but its results are not particularly reliable. One has to look for better evidence from case-control studies or from meta studies which group together several similar studies to reach sufficient size for statistical confidence to be established.

In fact, the best available epidemiological evidence is the 2008 Kikk[4] case-control study (Spix et al, (2008); Kaatsch et al (2008)) commissioned by the German Federal government which examined cancers near all 19 German nuclear reactors.  It was conducted over a 3 year period by a crack team of German epidemiologists at Mainz University: apparently no expense was spared.

The problem is that the KiKK study found a 120% increase in leukemias and a 60% increase in all cancers among infants and children under 5 years old living within 5 km of all German NPPs. The increase of risk with proximity to the NPP site, tested with a reciprocal distance trend, was statistically significant for all cancers (p < 0.0034, one-sided), as well as for leukemias (p < 0.0044, one-sided).

Clearly the Imperial researchers did not wish to discuss these disturbing findings, but an unbiased study discussion would have.

Indeed much epidemiological evidence indicates increased leukaemia and solid cancer risks near  nuclear plants all over the world. Laurier and Bard (1999) and Laurier et al (2008) examined the literature on childhood leukaemia near NPPs world-wide. These identified a total of over 60 studies[5]. An independent review of these studies (Fairlie and Körblein, 2010) indicated the large majority (>70%⁵) showed small increases in childhood leukaemia although many findings were not statistically significant. Laurier et al were employees of the French Government’s Institut de Radioprotection et Sûreté Nucléaire: they confirmed that clusters of childhood leukaemia cases existed near NPPs but refrained from drawing any conclusions.

Fairlie and Körblein (2010) in their review of the above studies concluded that the evidence indicating increased leukaemia rates near nuclear facilities, specifically in young children, was convincing. This conclusion was supported by two meta-analyses of national multi-site studies. Baker and Hoel (2007) assessed data from 17 research studies covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan, and Spain. In children up to nine years old, leukaemia death rates were 5% to 24% higher and leukaemia incidence rates were 14% to 21% higher. However their analysis was criticised by Spix and Blettner (2010) authors of the KiKK study – see below.

The second meta-analysis by Körblein and Fairlie (2012) covering NPPs in Germany, Switzerland, France and the UK also found a statistically significant increased risk of child leukemias and relative risk of leukaemia deaths near NPPs (RR = 1.37; one-tailed p value = 0.0246). Further studies (Guizard et al, 2001; Hoffman et al, 2007) in France and Germany indicated raised leukaemia incidences.  Later, Bithell et al (2008) and Laurier et al (2008) found increases in child leukemias near UK and French NPPs respectively. In both cases, the numbers were low and the results not statistically significant.

Ultimately we should rely on the KiKK study as it was a large, well-conducted study; its findings were scientifically rigorous; its evidence was particularly strong; and the German government’s radiation protection agency, the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) confirmed its findings. A BfS appointed expert group stated (BfS, 2008)

“The present study confirms that in Germany there is a correlation between the distance of the home from the nearest NPP at the time of diagnosis and the risk of developing cancer (particularly leukemia) before the 5th birthday. This study is not able to state which biological risk factors could explain this relationship.” (BfS, 2008)

Although the KiKK study refrained from discussing the reasons for its findings, my hypothesis (Fairlie, 2014) is that the infant leukemias are a teratogenic effect of in utero exposures from intakes of radionuclides[6] from NPPs received during fetal development in pregnant women living nearby. The risks from NPP emissions to embryos/fetuses are apparently much larger than currently estimated. For example, haematopoietic (ie blood-forming) tissues are considerably more radiosensitive in embryos and fetuses than in children/adults. The combined immaturity of embryonic nervous and blood-forming systems make them particularly vulnerable to chronic radiation exposures from NPPs.

Unfortunately, official organisations, without exception, have found it difficult to accept that cancer increases near NPPs may be due to radioactive emissions. In their view, official doses from NPP emissions are too small to explain the observed increases in risks. This assumes that official risk models are correct and that their dose estimates are without uncertainties. However in 2004 the report of the UK Government’s CERRIE Committee stated that official dose estimates from internal emitters contained uncertainties which could sometimes be very large (CERRIE, 2004).

*Credit is due to Dr Alfred Korblein for his valuable assistance during this review.

References

Baker and Hoel (2007) Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of child[1]hood leukemias in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur. J. Cancer Care 16, 355e363.

BfS (2008) Unanimous Statement by the Expert Group commissioned by the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz, 5 Dec 2007. (German Federal Office for Radiation Protection) on the KiKK Study [cited March 30 2008] http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/druck/Ufoplan/4334_KIKK_Zusamm.pdf (in English).

Bithell et al (2008) Childhood leukaemia near British nuclear installations: methodological issues and recent results. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 132 (2), 191- 197

CERRIE (2004) Report of the Committee on the Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140108135436/http://www.cer%5B1%5Drie.org/

Bethan Davies, Frédéric B Piel, Aina Roca-Barceló, Anna Freni Sterrantino, Hima Iyathooray Daby, Marta Blangiardo, Daniela Fecht, Frank de Vocht, Paul Elliott, Mireille B Toledano (2025)  Childhood cancer incidence around nuclear installations in Great Britain, 1995–2016.  International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 54, Issue 4, August 2025, dyaf107, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107

Fairlie I and Körblein A (2010) Review of epidemiology studies of childhood leukemia near nuclear facilities: commentary on Laurier et al. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 138 (2), 194-195 author reply 195-7……………………………………………………………..(and more)

July 20, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | health