re: #114 ryannon

SNIP

“Subsequently, however, the Commission of Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), a private agency, reported that, at low tide, tourists collecting seashells near a pipe carrying nuclear waste out to sea were exposed to 300 microsieverts per hour, which amounts in 4 hours to “more than the annual maximum dose.” In addition, CRIIRAD found abnormal concentrations of highly toxic iodine-129 in moss within a 7-km radius of the plant. Altogether, CRIIRAD claims, authorized outputs by the La Hague plant exceed the total discharge of all the world’s nuclear reactors combined.”

“Bernard Koucher, France’s secretary of state for health, promised to set up a national cancer registry to determine whether people living near nuclear plants are prone to a higher incidence of the disease.”

The French government (surprise!) never did the study. A private, non-partisan agency (the CRIIRAD) did however, and their results corroborated the UK report.

However, the first study you cited looked for precisely that - a connection between radiation exposure and leukemia - and found none. Instead, it turned up the interesting clue that leukemia has traits similar to an infectious agent.

And as already noted: even if true, so what? The only risk-free state is when you’re dead. How do these risks compare to those of increased incidence of emphysema, pulmonary disease and radiation-induced illness among those living downwind from coal-fired power plants? Or to any of the numerous risks associated with any other form of energy production?