|
NUCLEAR GENOCIDE IN CANADA Part 5 Health Studies "There are so many former Navajo uranium miners now in their 70s and 80s who have uranium-related cancer that the Navajo Nation has a permanent office in Shiprock to take applications for those who qualify under Congress' Radiation Compensation Exposure Act. Congress passed the act in 1990 because the U.S. government failed to tell the miners decades before that the 'yellow cake' could eventually kill them. Those who qualify by having certain cancers are paid $100,000, to make up for a life time of radiation exposure." (Jim Snyder, The Daily Times) The United States government admitted 20 years ago that thousands of their citizens were negatively impacted by their exposure to radiation. Their Radiation Compensation and Exposure Act was enacted to provide compensation to those who were affected. Canada is now alone among the nuclear powers in not admitting the harm they have caused their citizens. The recent spate of health studies from other parts of the world are destroying the credibility of Canada's position that there is no danger from our exposure to the nuclear fuel cycle. Health studies on uranium miners, nuclear energy workers, people living near the facilities as well as the comprehensive reports on radiation from international scientific bodies are leaving no doubt of the negative impact to health that is caused by exposure to radiation from the full spectrum of radioactive isotopes. According to NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service): "The National Academies of Science released an over-700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on 'Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation' reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiationthat even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells. The report also found that: Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks. Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects. It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures." (NIRS, Washington, DC July 30, 2005) The following are some of the radiation-related health studies conducted in Canada and around the world. They leave no doubt about the health impacts of exposure to radiation in all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the face of these findings, Canada and the nuclear regulators will have to change their approach to protecting Canadians. Canada vs. United States The biggest and most obvious flaw in the health studies conducted in Canada by the government and the nuclear industry is that they are not testing for all the radiation induced illnesses and conditions. If you look at the chart below, you will see that Canada only recognizes four conditions that can be caused by exposure to radiation while the United States government lists 36 of them. Conditions recognized in law in the United States as associated with radiation exposure: 1. leukemia, lymphoid (except chronic lymphatic leukemia) 2. leukemia, myeloid 3. leukemia, monocytic 4. leukemia, hairy cell 5. leukemia, other 6. leukemia, unspecified cell type 7. thyroid cancer 8. breast cancer 9. lung cancer (trachea, bronchus and lung) 10. bone cancer 11. liver cancer, primary 12. skin cancer 13. esophageal cancer 14. stomach cancer 15. colon cancer 16. pancreatic cancer 17. kidney cancer 18. urinary bladder cancer 19. salivary gland cancer 20. multiple myeloma 21. posterior subcapsular cataracts 22. non-malignant thyroid nodular disease 23. ovarian cancer 24. parathyroid adenoma 25. malignant tumours, brain and central nervous system 26, lymphomas other than hodgkins disease 27. cancer, rectum 28. cancer, small intestine 29. cancer, pharynx 30. cancer, bile duct 31. cancer, gall bladder 32. cancer, renal pelves, ureters, urethra 33. cancer, prostate 34. brochio-alveolar carcinoma 35. benign neoplasms, brain and central nervous system 36. other malignancies not listed in the preceding diagnoses Conditions recognized by Health Canada as associated with radiation exposure: 1. leukemia 2. lung cancer 3. breast cancer 4. thyroid cancer Why does the Government of Canada recognize only leukemia, lung, breast and thyroid as sentinel cancers associated with ionizing radiation when the United States Dept. of Justice recognizes 36? The health studies commissioned by the Canadian government, Health Canada and the nuclear regulators all share this weakness. Health Studies on Miners The Canadian Government was first warned about the dangers faced by uranium miners in 1932 by experts in Canada's Department of Mines. Canada was advised of the dangers many times over the next fifty years but no warning was ever issued to a miner. As the owner of the first uranium mines and conversion facilities, Canada didn't want to increase the cost of production by having to supply safety equipment to the miners and other nuclear workers. The following are some of the studies carried out on uranium miners. A 1979 pilot study on miners at Port Radium showed that 10 of the 76 miners who had worked there for more than five years died of lung cancer between 1953-1979.A second study on Port Radium miners was conducted in 1987 by Howe, Nair, Newcombe, Miller, Burch and Abbott. They reported 57 lung cancer deaths among 2,103 miners or 2.4 times the expected rate. "In 1942, Wilhelm C. Hueper, the founding director of the environmental cancer section of the U.S. National Cancer Institute reviewed 300 years of radon data on European miners. His conclusion: radon gas in cobalt mines routinely produced lung cancers that systematically killed more than half of all miners 10 to 20 years after their employment." (Andrew Nikiforuk, 1998) The Ontario Miners' Study in 1995 conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Labour identified 152 lung cancer deaths among 21,346 miners or 2.3 times the expected rate. Former miners at Elliot Lake were making one claim per week on average 10 years after the mine closed. They all had lung cancer and other radiation related illnesses. The health study from Shiprock, New Mexico found congenital deformities were 83% higher among the miners families than the reference group that was tested. The American Journal of Epidemiology conducted a study on employees from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in 1988. From 1950to 1980, there were 946 deaths out of 13,570 employees. The Beaverlodge Miners Study conducted by the American Journal of Epidemiology identified 65 lung cancer deaths among 8,487 miners or two times the expected rate. Jadugoda, India Uranium Mines Study This is the largest and most thorough study ever carried out on people who are affected by the mining of uranium. The study group was made up of 9,511 people living in five villages within 5 kilometres of the uranium mines in India. The reference group consisted of 8,490 people from 14 villages at least 25 kilometres away from the mines. The study found: 27% more people died before reaching the age 62 in the villages within 5 kilometres of the uranium mines than in the villages more than 25 kilometres away. Cancer was the primary cause of death in 52% more people in the villages within five kilometres of the uranium mines. 4.49 % of births in the study area had congenital deformities as compared to 2.49% in the reference group or an 84% increase. Couples living in the study villages in proximity to the mines are 58% more vulnerable to primary sterility than those living more than 25 kilometres away. Port Hope Studies by Health Canada Health Canada conducted 'indicator' health studies in Port Hope in 1998 and 2000. The studies were intended to pinpoint the direction that should be taken for comprehensive health studies. These limited studies gave the following results. 13% more deaths than expected in Port Hope from 1986-1997. 48% elevation over expected rates for all childhood cancer deaths. 41% elevation in incidence of leukemia for children over the 26 year period of the incidence study. 38% higher number of deaths from colorectal cancer in women than expected in the 1986-1996 time period. Lung cancer was elevated for men and women in different time periods with female rates significantly elevated during the 1986-1996 time period. Brain cancers in females are more than 2 times the expected rate in the 1986-1997 time period and are significantly elevated for the 26 year study period. Almost 50% excess of brain cancers in children over the 42 year study period with the time period 1971-1985 showing more than 4 times the expected number of brain cancers in children. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma statistically significantly elevated in children for the entire time period. Nasal cancer incidence rate is significantly high for males. Most notably in the 1971-1985 period with rates 5 times higher than expected. Esophageal cancer rates are twice the expected rate for men from 1971-1985. Women have a 50% excess for the entire period. Rarer cancers such as lip/nose and sinuses/bone showed statistically significantly elevated incidence rates for men in at least one time period. 15% of excess circulatory disease deaths which amounts to over 300 excess deaths (more than 7 per year) during the 42 year period. Female circulatory disease rates rose dramatically from the period 1976-1985 to 1986-1997 and 100 more female deaths than expected were due to this cause. Health Canada stated that none of the results above are 'significant' and have refused to do further studies as they have promised since 1978. Dr. Rosalie Bertell did not equivocate in her assessment of the results released by Health Canada: "Health Canada's claim of 'no problem' to area residents from 70 years of exposure is fraudulent and not supported by the data presented in the report." (Dr. Rosalie Bertell) In February 2004, Dr. Eric Mintz, Epidemiologist, did an independent analysis of the data in the two Health Canada/CNSC reports. He identifies significant trends for Port Hope which were not considered important by CNSC staff. Dr. Mintz stated: "The patterns of several cancer rates show cause for concern in that the patterns are consistent with environmental contamination and certainly the raised leukemia rates, which were even higher before remediation, are not reassuring. Along with the brain cancer, colon cancer and some of the rare cancer results, the available evidence points to there being problems in Port Hope." (Dr. Eric Mintz 2004) Durham Region Report The 'Radiation and Health in Durham Region Report 2007 (RHDRR 2007)' is reference by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to justify their assertion that the Pickering B reactors are not negatively impacting the health of residents in the community. Dr. Rosalie Bertell analyzed the report shortly after its release. Some of her comments are: RHDRR 2007 is an ecological study. This is the weakest design of all types of health studies now available to health researchers. The outcome of a study is pre-determined by the study design and methodology. They used the poorest choices available. The Durham Health Department eliminated without justification, consideration of pancreatic cancer (the fifth most common), cardio-vascular disease, and teratogenic (initiated while in utero) diseases or malformation, known to be caused by exposure to ionizing radiation. The Durham Health Department has failed to become current on the literature documenting the human genetic effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Moreover, it does not have the right to declare cancer the only health effect of radiation which is "of concern" to the public. RHDRR 2007 tried to minimize the international study of atomic workers in 15 countries, and failed to inform the public that CANDU workers had shown more excess cancers than those working in other nuclear reactor types. German Leukemia Study The German study, carried out by the epidemiologist Professor Joerg Michaelis, found leukemia rates among children living within five kilometres (3 miles) of nuclear power stations was 117% higher than the general population. Overall cancer rates among children were 60% higher. The study looked at statistics from between 1980 and 2003 in regions near 21 reactors or former reactors. According to Heinz Juergen-Peters: "After the study was published the German Environment Minister ordered the government's Radiation Protection Commission to review it. A committee of twelve external independent experts found out that the study is methodologically accurate. In fact, they said the study was flawless. It should be noted that other experts also considered the study to be exemplary, as it was well-designed and carefully conducted." (Physicians for Global Survival) The study was conducted on the instruction of the German Environment Ministry. It is telling to note however, that the "German environment minister, Angela Merkel, announced in November 1997 (before the study was released) that according to a large-scale leukemia study there was no higher risk of leukemia for children living close to nuclear power plants. A few weeks later, however, it was discovered that the minister and the professor had tried to deceived the public." (485.4811 Wise Amsterdam) The release of the study proved the environment minister, a nuclear supporter, was not telling the truth. Childhood Leukemia Near Reactors The following information was put out in a press release by Joseph Mangano on Nov. 11, 2008: "Leukemia death rates in children near nuclear reactors in the United States rose sharply in the past two decades, according to a recent study by epidemiologist Joseph Mangano and toxicologist Janette Sherman. The greatest mortality increases occurred near the oldest nuclear plants, while declines were observed near plants that closed permanently in the 1980s and 1990s. The study was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care." End of Part 5 |