Positive Response to Wylfa Debate by: Gordon Warren
Good to read positive responses from 'Wil' and John O'Neill based on real evidence. Unfortunately a lot of people will believe the scare stories and not check the facts for themselves.
Also, can we please get away from the 'either or' argument on nuclear versus alternative? We need both, and we need them soon.
Mar 23, 2008 Rating
Nuclear Real Facts by: Wil
Recent figures can be found on the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit website, by going to http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/ and searching under the appropriate keywords.
It may also be of interest to note the graph on DEFRA's website which shows that the Chernobyl incident only accounted for 20% of fallout, whereas the weapons testing from the late 50's/ early 60s accounts for 80% and is still measurable well above the Chernobyl readings today: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/radioact/radfallout.htm
Add to this areas which are at risk from Radon gas: http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/radon/radon_maps/index.htm and perhaps you will see that nuclear power stations are very much the scapegoat for those who manipulate unsubstantiated "statistics" for their own ends.
Mar 20, 2008 Rating
No Cancer link to Nuclear Power Stations by: John O'Neill
A Japanese study carried out between 1973-1987 showed that leukaemia and lymphoma mortality in the vicinity of nuclear power stations in Japan was not significantly different to other control areas.
In fact, results showed that incidence was high in some locations before the nuclear facility had been set up.
So it would appear that there is no causal link between a nuclear power station and an above average incidence of neoplasms.
