Antinuclear

Dr Caldicott’s message on nuclear health dangers

”That’s the ace up the sleeve of the nuclear industry,” she says. ”It’s a silent, cryptogenic disease that doesn’t denote its origin. You have to do big epidemiological studies like the German study to find out what’s going on.”

Why nuclear energy struggles to get private sector funds Sydney Morning Herald , Paddy Manning, February 20, 2010

People have forgotten – a younger generation perhaps never knew – what is scary about nuclear energy.

Anti-nuclear campaigners such as Dr Helen Caldicott are routinely disparaged nowadays. A quick trawl through the clippings yields choice descriptors: “inane”, “hysteric”, “rabid”, “ageing”, “anti-nuclear messiah” and “warrior princess”.

One columnist accused her of speaking to a meeting of the so-called ”9/11 truth” movement (people with conspiracy theories about September 11). It was completely untrue.

There is no doubt a growing number of Australians believe nuclear energy is the answer to our coal dependence, as global warming accelerates………..Having a mature debate about finding 25 sites for nuclear power stations near our capital cities sounds sensible, until you consider the health risks involved.

A recent German epidemiological study found that the risk of leukaemia in children under five years old was doubled when the child lived within five kilometres of a nuclear power plant………..

Can you imagine more fertile ground for public concern? No such studies have been done in the US – because, Caldicott believes, the nuclear lobby does not want anyone to know. She takes a jaundiced view of Obama’s new policy: the nuclear proponent Exelon donated $US200,000 to Obama’s election campaign and key staff members, including his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod, have links to the company. Obama’s home town of Chicago has the heaviest dependence on nuclear power of any US city, she says.

Caldicott says the public is misinformed and the risks are misunderstood. It might feel safe to swim in the waste water of a nuclear reactor, as they do in Europe, but it takes 15 to 60 years for the cancer to show.

”That’s the ace up the sleeve of the nuclear industry,” she says. ”It’s a silent, cryptogenic disease that doesn’t denote its origin. You have to do big epidemiological studies like the German study to find out what’s going on.”

Why nuclear energy struggles to get private sector funds

February 20, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | antinuclear, Australia, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear weapons, radioactive