Doctors fear health fallout from nuclear energy plans

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Doctors fear health fallout from nuclear energy plans

Doctors have warned of no “safe” level of radiation from a proposed network of nuclear reactors as battlelines are drawn for the federal election.

Similar to other nuclear-powered nations, Australians living within a certain radius of a reactor would need to be issued potassium iodide tablets for use in a radiation emergency, a nuclear briefing has learned.

“The only reason that everyone in that radius is given that is because they might need it,” Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Josh Wilson told a nuclear briefing on Tuesday.

If anyone comes to buy your house, the proximity of a reactor will be noted on the land titles register, and insurers will not cover nuclear accidents, he said.

The warning came as doctors fronted parliament to warn of long-term health risks for workers and surrounding communities, particularly children.

Evidence included a meta-data analysis of occupational and environmental exposure that accumulated data on more than seven million people.

It found living within 30km of a reactor increased overall ******* risk by five per cent, with thyroid ******* increasing by 14 per cent and leukaemia by nine per cent.

A separate study of workers in the nuclear industry in France, the United Kingdom and the United States analysed results from more than 300,000 people who were monitored for over 30 years.

Finding not only increased ******* rates but surprisingly increased rates of heart attacks and strokes, it found impacts at low doses were larger than previously thought.

“There is no ‘safe’ lower dose of radiation. The science is clear. All exposure adds to long-term health risks,” vice-president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War Dr Margaret Beavis said.

Nationals MP David Gillespie, who practised medicine for more than two decades before entering parliament, refuted the data, saying it was “controversial”.

“Nuclear power plants don’t emit radiation,” he told the briefing.

It was also “incorrect” to suggest Australia did not have a regulatory system for nuclear safety, Dr Gillespie said.

Under the coalition’s nuclear energy blueprint, seven reactors would be built across five states to replace ageing coal-fired power plants with more gas-fired plants to provide baseload power in the interim.

“Zero-emissions nuclear plants” are a key part of the Nationals’ election pitch to regions where coal plants are already closing, while Labor is pressing ahead with the transition to renewable energy backed up by big batteries.

Public Health Association of Australia spokesman Dr Peter Tait said the idea that the nuclear industry was free of greenhouse gas emissions was a “furphy”, given the construction and uranium supply chain involved.

Emissions would rise threefold under the nuclear plan due to increased coal and gas use, he warned, with the first plant not due to come online until the late 2030s.

From a public health perspective, Australians can’t afford that delay, Dr Tait said.

Executive director of Doctors for the Environment Dr Kate Wylie said prolonging the dependency on fossil fuels would mean more Australians would be affected by their known health risks, including increased rates of asthma.

Nuclear energy would also put communities at risk during the next drought, when reactors would be first in line for scarce water, Dr Wylie said.

“The ethical thing to do is to choose the least water-intensive energy source, which are wind and solar,” she said.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#Doctors #fear #health #fallout #nuclear #energy #plans

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up