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 | Leave a comment

Ian Fairlea critiques New Study on Cancers near UK nuclear facilities

July 16, 2025, https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/new-study-on-cancers-near-uk-nuclear-facilities/

A recent UK study Davies et al (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 has concluded that no increased cancers occur  near UK nuclear facilities.

This is my initial quick response to this study.

In my view, the new study  has several limitations which inhibit its use a guide to nuclear policy.

First, as the authors admit, it’s an ecological study – the weakest kind of epidemiological study which just looks at incidence data from UK National Statistical tables.  It is much better (but more time-consuming and expensive) to conduct a case-control  study, or even better a cohort  study.

But their discussion refrains from discussing in detail the much better 2008 German KIKK study which was a case-control study and which actually observed a doubling of leukaemia risks and a 60% increase in solid cancer risks near all German NPPs.

Second the study’s methodology is flawed for several reasons. The authors chose (or were instructed to use) a large 25 km radius around UK NPPs even though the better KiKK study showed that almost all cancer cases resided much closer to the NPPs ie within 5 km with very few cases beyond. Also almost  all UK nuclear facilities are on the coast. That means about half the catchment areas here consist of the sea and of course there are no cancer cases there.

The results are that the signal (cancer cases) is diluted …and therefore no increases are detected. It’s almost as if the study were constructed with the aim of not finding any increases. This is not good science.

Third the study refrains from discussing many scientific references by Korblein, by Laurier et al (one is mentioned but their more important ones are not), by myself, and by others,  and as stated above the Kikk study. This is evidence of a biased approach, sorry to say.

July 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment

Ailing Leaders Heighten Nuclear War Concerns

“This is particularly the case for the United States, where a leader can in principle authorise the release of nuclear weapons on their own, a situation referred to as a ‘nuclear monarchy’.”

14 Jul 2025, https://www.miragenews.com/ailing-leaders-heighten-nuclear-war-concerns-1495665/

Many former leaders of the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations were impaired by health conditions while in office, raising concerns over their decision-making abilities while they had access to nuclear weapon launch codes, a study from the University of Otago, New Zealand, has found.

The study analysed the health information of 51 deceased leaders of nuclear-armed countries: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Eight of the leaders died from chronic disease while still in office, five from heart attacks or strokes. Many of the leaders had multiple serious health issues while in office, including dementia, personality disorders, depression and drug and alcohol abuse.

The research was led by Professor Nick Wilson, from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, Wellington – Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Pōneke, with Associate Professor George Thomson and independent researcher Dr Matt Boyd.

Professor Wilson says that of the leaders who left office while still alive, 15 had confirmed or possible health issues which likely hastened their departure.

Professor Nick Wilson

“Probably all of this group of 15 leaders had their performance in office impaired by their health conditions. In some cases, the degree of impairment was profound, such as in the case of two former Israeli Prime Ministers: Ariel Sharon, who became comatose after suffering a stroke in office, and Menachem Begin, whose depression was so severe he spent his last year as leader isolated in his home. Impairment during crises was also seen in the case of Richard Nixon’s bouts of heavy drinking – including during a nuclear crisis involving the Middle East.

“There have also been occasions where health information about leaders has been kept secret at the time.”

This was the case for multiple US presidents, including Dwight D Eisenhower, whose doctor described his 1955 heart attack as a digestive upset; John F Kennedy, whose aides lied about him having Addison’s disease, a serious, chronic condition; and Ronald Reagan, whose administration hid the extent of his injuries after he was shot in 1981, and the likely signs of his dementia near the end of his term.

Professor Wilson says Kennedy was in poor health during his first two years in office in 1961 and 1962, with his performance likely impaired from Addison’s disease, back pain, and his use of anabolic steroids and amphetamines. It was in 1961 that he authorised the failed CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and that his poor performance at a Cold War summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was noted. In turn, Khrushchev’s poor mental health probably contributed to him triggering both the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In France, long-serving President François Mitterrand clung onto power until the end of his term in 1995, despite keeping secret his advanced prostate cancer and after his doctor had concluded in late 1994 that he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties.

This latest study follows previous research involving Professor Wilson on the health of former New Zealand Prime Ministers. It found the performance of at least four of the leaders was impaired, in three cases by poor health, and, in the case of Robert Muldoon, by his heavy drinking.

Professor Wilson says with the rise in international instability following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 it has become even more important to ensure there is good leadership and governance in those countries with nuclear weapons.

“This is particularly the case for the United States, where a leader can in principle authorise the release of nuclear weapons on their own, a situation referred to as a ‘nuclear monarchy’.”

He says there is a range of measures which could reduce global security risks from leaders whose judgement is in question. They include removing nuclear weapons from ‘high alert’ status, adopting ‘no first use’ policies where nations refrain from using nuclear weapons except as a retaliatory second strike, ensuring any weapon launches need authorisation by multiple people, and progressing nuclear disarmament treaties.

Professor Wilson says democracies could consider introducing term limits for their leaders, as well as recall systems, so voters could petition for politicians to step down. Requirements for medical and psychological assessments could be introduced for leaders before they take office, and during their terms.

“Maintaining a strong media with investigative journalists can also help expose impairment in leaders.”

Professor Wilson says politicians in general are exposed to high levels of stress, which can affect their mental wellbeing. A study of UK Members of Parliament has found they were 34 per cent more likely to experience mental health problems than other high-income earners.

“Finding ways to reduce stress on politicians and better address their mental health needs is another way global security risks can be reduced.”

Publication details

The frequently impaired health of leaders of nuclear weapon states: an analysis of 51 deceased leaders

Nick Wilson, George Thomson & Matt Boyd

BMC Research Notes
The associated recent study of impaired New Zealand Prime Ministers is detailed in this University of Otago media release.

July 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment

Ending nuclear weapons, before they end us

Led by Ireland and New Zealand, in late 2024, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to establish a 21 member independent scientific panel to undertake a new comprehensive study on the effects of nuclear war,12 with its final report due in 2027.

The resolution calls upon UN agencies, including WHO, to support the panel’s work, including by “contributing expertise, commissioned studies, data and papers.”

BMJ 2025; 389 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r881 (Published 13 May 2025)Cite this as: BMJ 2025;389:r88b https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r881

1. Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief1,
2. Parveen Ali, editor in chief2,
3. Virginia Barbour, editor in chief,
4. Marion Birch, editor in chief4,
5. Inga Blum, At-large board member5,
6. Peter Doherty, 1996 Nobel prize for physiology or medicine,
7. Andy Haines, professor of environmental change and public health6,
8. Ira Helfand, past president5,
9. Richard Horton, editor in chief7,
10. Kati Juva, co-president5,
11. Jose F Lapena8,
12. Jrvice president,
13. Robert Mash, editor in chief9,
14. Olga Mironova, co-president5,
15. Arun Mitra, past president5,
16. Carlos Monteiro, editor in chief10,
17. Elena N Naumova, editor in chief11,
18. David Onazi, co-president5,
19. Tilman Ruff, past president5,
20. Peush Sahni, editor in chief12,
21. James Tumwine, editor in chief13,
22. Carlos Umaña, co-president5,
23. Paul Yonga, editor in chief14,
24. Chris Zielinski, president8

WHO’s mandate to provide evidence on health effects must be restored

In May 2025 the World Health Assembly (WHA) will vote on re-establishing a mandate for the World Health Organization (WHO) to address the health consequences of nuclear weapons and war.1 Health professionals and their associations should urge their governments to support such a mandate and support the new UN comprehensive study on the effects of nuclear war.

The first atomic bomb exploded in the New Mexico desert 80 years ago, in July 1945. Three weeks later, two relatively small (by today’s standards), tactical size nuclear weapons unleashed a cataclysm of radioactive incineration on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By the end of 1945, about 213 000 people were dead.2 Tens of thousands more have died from late effects of the bombings.

Last December, Nihon Hidankyo, a movement that brings together atomic bomb survivors, was awarded the Nobel peace prize for its “efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”3 For the Norwegian Nobel committee, the award validated the most fundamental human right: the right to live. The committee warned that the menace of nuclear weapons is now more urgent than ever before. In the words of committee chair, Jørgen Watne Frydnes, “It is naive to believe our civilisation can survive a world order in which global security depends on nuclear weapons. The world is not meant to be a prison in which we await collective annihilation.”4 He noted that our survival depended on keeping intact the “nuclear taboo” (which stigmatises the use of nuclear weapons as morally unacceptable).5

The nuclear taboo gains strength from recognition of compelling evidence of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war, its severe global climatic and famine consequences, and the impossibility of any effective humanitarian response. This evidence contributed significantly to ending the Cold War nuclear arms race.67

While the numbers of nuclear weapons are down to 12 331 now, from their 1986 peak of 70 300,8 this is still equivalent to 146 605 Hiroshima bombs9 and does not mean humanity is any safer.10 Even a fraction of the current arsenal could decimate the biosphere in a severe mass extinction event. The global climate disruption caused by the smoke pouring from cities ignited by just 2% of the current arsenal could result in over two billion people starving.11

A worldwide nuclear arms race is underway. Deployed nuclear weapons are increasing again, and China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and UK are all enlarging their arsenals. An estimated 2100 nuclear warheads in France, Russia, UK, US, and, for the first time, in China, are on high alert, ready for launch within minutes.8 With disarmament in reverse, extensive nuclear modernisations underway, multiple arms control treaties abrogated without replacement, no disarmament negotiations in evidence, nuclear armed Russia and Israel engaged in active wars involving repeated nuclear threats, Russia and the US deploying nuclear weapons to additional states, and widespread use of cyberwarfare, the risk of nuclear war is widely assessed to be greater than ever. This year the Doomsday clock was moved the closest to midnight since the clock’s founding in 1947.10

Led by Ireland and New Zealand, in late 2024, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to establish a 21 member independent scientific panel to undertake a new comprehensive study on the effects of nuclear war,12 with its final report due in 2027. Noting that “removing the threat of a nuclear war is the most acute and urgent task of the present day,” the panel has been tasked with examining the physical effects and societal consequences of a nuclear war on a local, regional and planetary scale. It will examine the climatic, environmental, and radiological effects of nuclear war and their impact on public health, global socioeconomic systems, agriculture, and ecosystems.

The resolution calls upon UN agencies, including WHO, to support the panel’s work, including by “contributing expertise, commissioned studies, data and papers.” All UN member states are encouraged to provide relevant information, scientific data, and analyses; facilitate and host panel meetings, including regional meetings; and make budgetary or in-kind contributions. Such an authoritative international assessment of evidence on the most acute existential threat to humankind and planetary health is long overdue. The last such report dates from 1989. It is shameful that France, UK, and Russia opposed this resolution.13

In 1983 and 1987,14 WHO convened an international committee of scientists and health experts to study the health effects of nuclear war. Its landmark, authoritative reports were influential and an excellent example of WHO fulfilling its constitutional mandate “to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.” In 1993, WHO produced an additional shorter report on the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons, which included discussion of the production chain of nuclear weapons, including processing, testing, and disposal.15

However, despite the WHA having mandated WHO to report periodically on relevant developments, no further work was undertaken, and in 2020 WHO’s mandate on nuclear weapons and health lapsed.

The Marshall Islands, Samoa, and Vanuatu, supported by seven co-sponsoring states and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, are working to renew WHO’s mandate. They are seeking wide support for a resolution on the health effects of nuclear weapons/war at this year’s WHA in Geneva on 19-27 May.1 WHO would then re-establish a programme of work on this most critical threat to health and be able to lead strongly in providing the best health evidence to the UN panel.

Health professionals are well aware how crucial accurate and up-to-date evidence is to making good decisions. We and our organisations should support such a renewed mandate by urging our national WHA delegates to vote in support and commit the modest funds needed to re-establish WHO’s work programme, especially now, as the organisation faces severe financial strain with the US decision to withdraw its membership.

Our joint editorial in 202316 on reducing the risks of nuclear war and the role of health professionals, published in over 150 health journals worldwide, urged three immediate steps by nuclear armed states and their allies: adopt a “no first use” policy, take their nuclear weapons off hair trigger alert, and pledge unequivocally that they will not use nuclear weapons in any current conflicts they are involved in. We also urged nuclear armed states to work for a definitive end to the nuclear threat by urgently starting negotiations for a verifiable, timebound agreement to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and called on all nations to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.17

It is an alarming failure of leadership that no progress has been made on these needed measures, nor on many other feasible steps away from the brink, acting on the obligation of all states to achieve nuclear disarmament. Nine states jeopardise all humanity and the biosphere by claiming an exclusive right to wield the most destructive and inhumane weapons ever created. The world desperately needs the leaders of these states to freeze their arsenals, end the modernisation and development of new, more dangerous nuclear weapons, and ensure that new technology such as artificial intelligence can never trigger the launch of nuclear weapons.

The UN scientific panel and a renewed mandate for WHO’s work in this area can provide vital authoritative and up-to-date evidence for health and public education, evidence based advocacy and policies, and the mobilised public concern needed to trigger decisive political leadership. This is a core health imperative for all of us.

June 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment

Nuclear veterans hand ‘evidence dossier’ to police

Annabel Tiffin, BBC North West Tonight, 18 May 25

A man who was exposed to nuclear tests in the 1950s is calling on police to investigate what he has described as a 74-year injustice.

John Morris, of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, was 18 when he was sent to Christmas Island in the Pacific, where bombs were detonated in a series of infamous tests, and has suffered a range of health problems since.

Now 87, he is part of a group of veterans who have lodged a criminal complaint about the Ministry of Defence (MoD) saying they are “devastated at the way veterans are being denied justice”.

They claim the department’s actions amount to potential misconduct in public office with a cover-up of radiation experiments – a claim the MoD refutes.

Mr Morris said the evidence the veterans have is a “ticking time bomb”.

He said he witnessed the testing of four hydrogen bombs as part of Britain’s effort to demonstrate its nuclear capabilities during the Cold War.

The veterans, alongside the Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, have now handed in a 500-page dossier of evidence, collated by the Mirror newspaper, to the Metropolitan Police.

Mr Morries was dressed in just shorts, a shirt and sunglasses even though he was positioned less than 20 miles (32km) away from the explosion, he told BBC North West Tonight.

He also worked in a laundry, washing contaminated clothing.

“I helped to produce an evil, evil weapon and trust me what I saw will live with me forever,” he said.

Mr Morris was one of about 22,000 military personnel exposed to the nuclear tests.

Many have since died and Mr Morris said many of his troop died from cancer.

He has also had cancer and lost a son at four months old, which he believes was down to his own exposure to radiation……………………….

Regarding their dossier for the police, Mr Morris said “time is of the essence” as many of the survivors are now in their 80s and taking the case to the police was a “last resort”, but he has grown frustrated with what he feels is a lack of accountability.

The veteran had a meeting with Sir Keir Starmer in 2021 when he was leader of the opposition but is now appealing to meet him as Prime Minister – to make good on what the group believe was a pledge made by the Labour Party.

“All I want is to sit down with Keir Starmer and to find a resolution which will suit the government and the veterans,” he said…..

‘Clear evidence’

Mayor Andy Burnham said: “In my view, there is clear evidence of misconduct in public office and following the 80th anniversary of VE day the investigation of it can wait no longer.”…………. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvme62jej8o

May 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment

We can’t have both healthier children and nukes

May 15, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/we-cant-have-both-healthier-children-and-nukes/

According to The New York Times, a new Trump Administration Executive Order (EO) urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) “to reconsider its safety limits for radiation exposure, saying that current limits are too strict and go beyond what is needed to protect human health.” And yet, studies already show increases in childhood cancers, including leukemia and central nervous system cancers, around operating reactors in countries other than the U.S.

A decade ago, the U.S. opted not to continue a study that would have examined cancer incidence around NRC licensed facilities. Communities around uranium facilities have suffered increases in disease as well. The EO could potentially extend a cover-up of childhood health impacts around nuclear fuel chain facilities, and would contradict another of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order of February 13, 2025 establishing the MAHA Commission.

That EO stated that from 1990-2021 Americans experienced an 88 percent increase in cancer, the largest percentage increase of any country evaluated. The EO addresses the sad state of the American diet compounded by absorption of toxic material and environmental factors as cause for concern. Intake of radioactivity from the nuclear fuel chain is one factor of concern as we know that radioactivity can cause cancer and other health ailments and that children and pregnancy development are particularly susceptible to damage from radiation exposure.

The Trump Administration will have to decide: healthier children? Or an expensive and unnecessary nuclear industry. It’s impossible to have both.

May 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment