Breast cancer rates are up to 5X higher near nuclear power plants, science shows

A scientific research paper in Great Britain asserted that breast cancer rates increased to 5x the normal rate for women who lived near one of three nuclear power plants that they studied. The two others nuclear power plants doubled the incidence for those women living downwind from the reactors.

For decades the American public has been assured that there is very little chance that nuclear radiation escapes from the normal operation of a nuclear power plant. Yes, there may be catastrophic mishaps like Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl, or Fukushima, but absent those once-in-a-decade nuclear disasters, the people living near these plants have nothing to worry about … until now.

“ Women living downwind from nuclear power plants are at five times greater risk of developing breast cancer, experts have warned.”

Recent studies were conducted in communities near three UK nuclear facilities, and is find that:

In 3 different research studies, a team of scientists looked at the rates of various cancers in populations living near to Trawsfynydd power station in North Wales, Bradwell in Essex and Hinkley Point in Somerset.

They found breast cancer rates, in particular, were greater than anticipated national averages at all three sites.

At Trawsfynydd, rates of the disease were five times higher than average, while in Essex and Somerset females had double the danger of developing breast cancer.

The Welsh plant, which is the only inland nuclear plant in the UK, closed down operations more than 2 years ago however has not yet been “fully decommissioned.”

A paper recently published by the Jacobs Journal of Public health and Preventive Medicine detailing the outcomes of the research studies concluded: “Trawsfynydd is a ‘filthy’ nuclear power station.”

The research study focusing on the Welsh plant surveyed 90 percent of those living downwind of the facility.

Among their findings:

Outcomes reveal very clearly that the downwind population has actually suffered due to the fact that of these direct exposures.

This is most clear in breast cancer in the more youthful females listed below 60, where the rates were almost 5 times the expected.

Additionally we see a doubling of risk in those who consumed fish from Trawsfynydd lake, which supports the conclusion that it is primarily a nuclear power station result that is being seen.

The other 2 websites included in the surveys, Bradwell and Hinkley Point, also clearly revealed an elevated occurrence of breast cancer in the neighborhoods near the plants. All three centers are handled by Magnox Ltd, a company “accountable for the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK’s civil nuclear sites on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.”

A much deeper and more uncomfortable question

It’s apparent that the the health threats related to nuclear reactor has actually constantly been categorically downplayed by those who wish to secure the industry.

So, if the plants which were functioning usually have triggered cancer in nearby communities, what are the health risk ramifications relating to the plants where things have gone terribly incorrect, such as the 2011 Fukushima catastrophe which has discarded staggering amounts of radioactive materials into the Pacific Ocean?

Once again, the “specialists” have actually minimized the dangers, however there is installing proof that the radiation from Fukushima has currently begun having an unfavorable result on marine life on the West Coast of the US and Canada, and the bulk of the radioactive cesium-137 has yet to reach the coasts of the North American continent.


About 800 tera becquerel of Cesium- 137 [sic] is going to reach West Coast of The United States and Canada by 2016, equivalent to 5 percent of the total Cs-137 quantity released to the pacific ocean after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a Japan researcher was priced quote by Kyodo recently.

Again, the authorities have rushed to encourage the general public that the increased radiation levels “aren’t anticipated to hurt human health.”

Based on the incorrect claims in the past that we have “absolutely nothing to fret about,” and all the evidence to the contrary, such as the current UK studies, it’s really challenging to think that there will be no ill results from the Fukushima radiation headed our way.

If cancer rates are five times as high near typically operating nuclear plants, how can we possibly think that the Fukushima contamination will have no effect on our health?