Home
Subscribe (free)
About NaturalNews
Contact Us
Write for NaturalNews
Media Info
Advertising Info

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


Breast cancer

Most Viewed Articles
https://www.naturalnews.com/050132_breast_cancer_nuclear_radiation_power_plants.html
Delicious
diaspora
Print
Email
Share

(NaturalNews) We have been fed propaganda for years aimed to convince us that, aside from rare incidents and accidents in which radiation has leaked into the environment, nuclear power plants are one of the safest and "cleanest" sources of energy.

And although many of us have always been skeptical about these claims, until now there have been few reports of health problems associated with living near nuclear plants which are functioning "normally."

However, recent studies have proven almost conclusively that this is simply not the case. The studies were conducted in communities near three UK nuclear facilities.

From the Daily Mail:

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

They discovered breast cancer rates, in particular, were higher than expected national averages at all three sites.

At Trawsfynydd, rates of the disease were five times greater than average, while in Essex and Somerset women had double the risk of developing breast cancer.


The Welsh plant, which is the only inland nuclear plant in the UK, shut down operations more than two decades ago but has not yet been "fully decommissioned."

A paper recently published by the Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine detailing the results of the studies concluded: "Trawsfynydd is a 'dirty' nuclear power station."

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

Among their findings:

Results show very clearly that the downwind population has suffered because of these exposures.

This is most clear in breast cancer in the younger women below 60, where the rates were almost five times the expected.

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


The other two sites included in the surveys, Bradwell and Hinkley Point, also clearly showed an elevated incidence of breast cancer in the communities near the plants. All three facilities are managed by Magnox Ltd, a company "responsible 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 deeper and more troubling question

It's obvious that the the health risks associated with nuclear power plants has always been categorically downplayed by those who wish to protect the industry.

So, if the plants which were functioning normally have caused cancer in nearby communities, what are the health risk implications regarding the plants where things have gone terribly wrong, such as the 2011 Fukushima disaster which has dumped staggering amounts of radioactive materials into the Pacific Ocean?

Once again, the "experts" have downplayed the risks, but there is mounting evidence that the radiation from Fukushima has already begun having an adverse effect 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 shores of the North American continent.

From ShanghaiDaily.com:

About 800 tera becquerel of Cesium- 137 [sic] is going to reach West Coast of North America by 2016, equivalent to 5 percent of the total Cs-137 amount discharged to the pacific ocean after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a Japan researcher was quoted by Kyodo recently.

Again, the authorities have rushed to convince the public that the increased radiation levels "aren't expected to harm human health."

Based on the erroneous claims in the past that we have "nothing to worry about," and all the evidence to the contrary, such as the recent UK studies, it's very difficult to believe that there will be no ill effects from the Fukushima radiation headed our way.

If cancer rates are five times as high near normally functioning nuclear plants, how can we possibly believe that the Fukushima contamination will have no impact on our health?

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.shanghaidaily.com

Join the Health Ranger's FREE email newsletter
Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more...
Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time. | Learn more...

comments powered by Disqus


Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Get alerted on heavy metals and pesticide test results for foods and supplements

Natural News is about to begin releasing lab test results for off-the-shelf food, supplement and pet food products, covering heavy metals, nutritive minerals, pesticides and herbicides. These details will be released exclusively to Natural News email newsletter subscribers (FREE) and will NOT be publicly posted on the website. To be alerted, join our free email newsletter now, and watch for lab test results in the weeks ahead.

Enter your email address below to subscribe to our email announcement list (but don't use gmail). Your privacy is protected and you can unsubscribe at any time. If you don't join our email list, you may never see our valuable content again via Facebook, Google or YouTube. CENSORSHIP has now reached EXTREME levels across the 'net. The truth is being suffocated. Subscribe now if you want to escape the delusional bubble of false reality being pushed by Google and Facebook.

Once you click subscribe, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free subscription.