Crucial to have rational debate on nuclear issues
By Mark Lemstra, Special to The Star Phoenix July 3, 2009 3:11 AM
Following is the viewpoint of the writer, who recently published a report, Exposure to radiation and health outcomes.
A number of viewpoints, articles and letters to the editor have been published in The StarPhoenix recently in regards to my report, and I'm writing a general response to clarify the misunderstandings.
The report is being portrayed as "anti-nuke" with "obligatory mentions to ... Three Mile Island." The actual conclusion within the report is that Three Mile Island had "no convincing evidence of increased cancer risk within the first 10 years of follow-up." Along with other conclusions like "nuclear energy has the least amount of overall CO2 emissions," it is unclear how the report can be portrayed as being anti-nuclear.
Where there has been some uproar is over the reporting that nuclear power workers have a 97 per cent excess relative risk of all cancer mortality. The study cited included 407,391 nuclear industry workers in 15 countries who were followed with individual level data for an average duration of 12.8 years.
Among the 15 countries reviewed, Canadian nuclear power workers had a 665 per cent excess relative risk for all cancer mortality (in comparison to 97 per cent worldwide). A second study specific to Canada reviewed 45,468 Canadian nuclear power workers for an average followup period of 7.4 years. It found an excess relative risk of mortality from all solid cancers of 280 per cent.
How could this happen?
Radiation protection standards were based on mathematical extrapolations from knowledge of acute, high dose exposures (mainly the atomic bombs in Japan). The recent research mentioned above has found that chronic, low doses of radiation are also harmful. These conclusions have been wrongfully criticized for not being "peer reviewed," but articles from these data sets have been published in some of the leading journals in the world, including the British Medical Journal.
It is important to note that my conclusion was not to stop nuclear development but rather to suggest that radiation protection standards for nuclear power workers need to be at least reviewed and possibly revised based on recent evidence.
The president of the Nuclear Power Safety Commission recently wrote to The SP that he will "initiate an analysis to understand the apparent differences in the risk estimates between Canadian and other (international) nuclear workers."
My paper has been criticized for not including comments from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or Health Canada. The peer reviewed papers that I discussed were published by scientists from Atomic Energy Commission of Canada, the AECL radiation biology and health physics branch of Chalk River Laboratories and the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada.
The information was collected and published by the nuclear power industry. I was simply conveying the message.
Somehow the discussion in the media has been moved from nuclear power stations to medical isotopes. My report did not address medical isotopes. In general, I am in favour of medical isotope development and a research reactor, providing that workers are protected.
That said, the medical isotope and research reactors being developed in Ontario were recently cancelled after 12 years of effort (eight years behind schedule) and $790 million of investment. The major concern, however, should be that the reactors' power coefficient of reactivity was positive, instead of negative, as anticipated. The scientists were unable to explain the discrepancy between theory and reality, and that is a bit worrisome.
I trust that we can have a rational debate about this important issue. There are some health implications to consider with nuclear power plants and I would hope these discussions are encouraged.
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source
___________________________
Nuclear initiative laudable
The Star Phoenix July 3, 2009 3:11 AM
The Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce strongly supports Premier Brad Wall's expression of interest to pursue a research reactor in Saskatoon, along with the potential to produce medical isotopes.
While much work needs to be done before our province might actually invest in such a facility, the premier's leadership and action-oriented approach is a much-needed ingredient in the formula for Saskatchewan's success.
Saskatoon already has a research reactor. The University of Saskatchewan has a history in research and medical application of nuclear technology. This project is potentially highly complementary to the Canadian Light Source.
These facts, along with our province's historic aspirations to value-add our resources, provide sound logical support for the premier's initiative.
The provincial government's initiative to start the Uranium Development Partnership should also be celebrated as a starting point to understanding how difficult it is to value-add our resources.
While our chamber has criticized this government on certain issues of taxation policy, the government and the premier are to be congratulated for their leadership on this important building block to a stronger and better Saskatchewan.
Kent Smith-Windsor
Executive Director, Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source