by In 1942, the chemical works of Mallinckrodt in Missouri, USA, processed uranium for the first atomic bomb.
There was no space for its radioactive waste and moved it to an open -air warehouse near Coldwater Creek north of St. Louis.
More than 80 years later, Harvard University has found that municipalities that have an increased risk of cancer near the stream, a tributary of the Missouri.
The results published this week showed a dose effect effect, whereby the closest water has a much higher probability of developing most cancer than those that live further away.
Researchers say that it emphasizes the dangers of exposure to only small amounts of radiation over time. You say that governments have to be careful when building new nuclear sites near cities and villages.
“Our research results show that the communities near North St. Louis had excess cancer due to the exposure to the contaminated Coldwater Creek,” said Prof. Marc Weissutt, expert in environmental epidemiology and physiology.
“These findings can have more comprehensive effects – since the countries are thinking about increasing nuclear power and developing more nuclear weapons, waste of these units could have enormous effects on people’s health, even at these lower levels of exposure.”
“Golden age of clean energy”
This comes at a time when the government in Great Britain increases nuclear energy and 14.2 billion GBP for a new nuclear power plant in Sizewell in Suffolk and 2.5 billion GBP for a small nuclear reactor program.
Ed Miliband, the Minister of Energy, said that nuclear energy is crucial to “achieve a golden age of clean energy -friendly”.
For decades, the fear has been afraid that radiation can cause cancer, with some indications of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma near Sellafield in Cumbria and Dounreay on the north coast of Scotland.
Nuclear power plants were also associated with increased cancer incidence in the USA and Germany.
The public was initially made aware of the possibility that nuclear power plants could cause cancer when an ITV documentary in 1983 resulted in a high number of cases of leukemia in childhood between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale near Sellafield.
While less than a case should have been expected in such a small community, the researchers found seven young people suffering from the disease.
The residents feared that radioactive discharges could be to blame and the committee for medical aspects of radiation in the environment (Comare) was set up for examination.
Comare studies showed that the rates of two types of leukemia in childhood and non-Hodgkin lymphoma were significantly higher than expected, and the researchers found a similar cluster in Thurso near Dounreay.
However, the researchers did not find any increased prices in other villages near Sellafield and Dounreay, which caused them to assume that something else caused the increase, potentially local infections that are known to trigger cancer in some cases.
The investigators stated that an influx of employees who moved to Seascale and Thurso to work in the nuclear industry could possibly have exposed to residents of new infections, which triggered an increase in cancer rates in childhood.
It is believed that viruses such as Epstein barrel are associated with cancer types such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
This week, the Imperial College and the University of Bristol published new research results, which were not shown any increased risk for young people who live within 15 miles around a British nuclear power plant.
The researchers analyzed cancer incidence data for almost 50,000 cases of leukemia in childhood, the lymphoma of non-Hodgkin, tumors of the central nervous system and other solid tumors in children aged up to 14 years between 1995 and 2016.
They have put it together against data for municipalities that live near nuclear power plants, including Sellafield and Dounreay, but did not find any increase in cases compared to the national average.
Dr. Bethan Davies from the School of Public Health from Imperial said: “There have been public concerns about the potential health effects of life near nuclear installations for many years.
“Our analysis suggests that children who live near these locations are not exposed to increased risk.
“Since the British government announces an investment of several billion pounds for a new nuclear energy infrastructure, our results should be sure that the historical clusters of cancer in childhood are no longer obvious near locations such as Sellafield and Dounreay.”
However, the Coldwater Creek housing shows the danger that can come from supposedly safe radioactive storage facilities. In Missouri, wind, rain and floods are to get radioactive material into the groundwater.
It is not expected that a cleaning company has been completed by 2038 and that the US government has just expanded the law to compensate for radiation exposure (reca) so that the affected medical expenditure can assert.
The British health alliance for climate change also warns that there is health risks related to life nearby and work in a nuclear work. Referring to German research that show that small children who live within a few miles from one location are particularly susceptible.
“Every proposed development of nuclear energy as an energy source must take potential risks to human health into account,” said Allianz in a position declaration last month.
Imperial College warned that it is important to continue to monitor health data in nuclear power plants, but said that his latest results should calm down the communities that live close to the reactors.
Prof. Mireille Toledano, who held the poppy chair for child health at the School of Public Health in the Imperial School of Public Health, said: “These results are both promptly and important.
“Since Great Britain and other countries expand their nuclear energy capacity, it is important that public health remains a central consideration.
“It is reassuring that our study has noticed that the historical case clusters have been solved, but it remains important that we continue to monitor the data of public health in such locations throughout the Great Britain.”
