NUCLEAR ENERGY AND HEALTH RISKS A QUEBEC PERSPECTIVE ÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MSc President, HPGS (...

NUCLEAR ENERGY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY AND HEALTH RISKSHEALTH RISKS

A QUEBEC PERSPECTIVEA QUEBEC PERSPECTIVE

ÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MScÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MScPresident, HPGS ( Quebec Chapter of PGS )President, HPGS ( Quebec Chapter of PGS )

Associate Professor of Medicine, University of MontrealAssociate Professor of Medicine, University of Montreal

September 26th, 2009September 26th, 2009

PLANPLAN 1. Risks for the general population1. Risks for the general population 2. Mechanisms and models used2. Mechanisms and models used 3. The CANDU and the tritium problem3. The CANDU and the tritium problem 4. Six canadian studies4. Six canadian studies 6. What is going on in Quebec ?6. What is going on in Quebec ? 7. Conclusions7. Conclusions

RISKS FOR THE GENERAL RISKS FOR THE GENERAL POPULATIONPOPULATION

Three major recent publicationsThree major recent publications

– Baker P.J. et Hoel D.G.: Meta-analysisBaker P.J. et Hoel D.G.: Meta-analysis 20072007

136 sites, 8 countries.136 sites, 8 countries.

– Mangano J. et Sherman J.D.:Meta-analysis 2008Mangano J. et Sherman J.D.:Meta-analysis 2008

51 sites, USA 67 Counties.51 sites, USA 67 Counties.

– Kaatsch P., Spix C., Jung I. et Blettner M. Kaatsch P., Spix C., Jung I. et Blettner M. 20082008

16 sites, Germany, KiKK study. 16 sites, Germany, KiKK study. Case-Control study.Case-Control study.

Meta-analysis No. 1 :Baker PJMeta-analysis No. 1 :Baker PJ

CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIASCHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS 136136 Nuclear power plants, uranium mines, Nuclear power plants, uranium mines, reprocessing sites, weapons sites. reprocessing sites, weapons sites. 1717studiesstudies grouped together.grouped together. 88 Countries: UK, Germany, Canada, Countries: UK, Germany, Canada,

Scotland, Spain, USA, France and Japan.Scotland, Spain, USA, France and Japan. Majority of the studies: Increased incidence, Majority of the studies: Increased incidence,

but not statistically significant.but not statistically significant.

Meta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJMeta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJ

European Journal of Cancer Care 2007:16:355-363

Meta-analysis No 1: Baker PJMeta-analysis No 1: Baker PJ

Fixed effects: Biggest studies have a biggest influence on the results.

Random effects: More appropriate if important heterogeneity ( as here ).

Meta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJMeta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJ CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS: No publication bias.No publication bias. Incidence: Fixed and random Incidence: Fixed and random

effect: Meta-SIR effect: Meta-SIR all ≥ 1all ≥ 1. . Statistically significant.Statistically significant.

Marked increase in the 0-9 Marked increase in the 0-9 y.o. group.y.o. group.

Death risk mainly increased Death risk mainly increased in the 0-9 y.o. group in the 0-9 y.o. group < 16 km.< 16 km.

Association ≠ Cause→effect.Association ≠ Cause→effect.

Meta-analysis No.2: Mangano.Meta-analysis No.2: Mangano.

CHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATESCHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATES 51 51 US Nuclear reactorsUS Nuclear reactors 6767 Counties Counties Population : 25 000 000.Population : 25 000 000. Divided in 3: Divided in 3:

– Nuclear plants that started 1957-1970 (oldest)Nuclear plants that started 1957-1970 (oldest)– Nuclear plants that started 1971 – 1981 (newest)Nuclear plants that started 1971 – 1981 (newest)– Nuclear plants started in 1957-1981, and shut down.Nuclear plants started in 1957-1981, and shut down.

European Journal of Cancer Care 2008;17:416-418

Meta-analysis No.2: ManganoMeta-analysis No.2: Mangano

Meta-analysis No. 2: ManganoMeta-analysis No. 2: Mangano

CONCLUSIONS: Mortality:CONCLUSIONS: Mortality: ↑↑ 13.9% Mortality near older plants 57-7013.9% Mortality near older plants 57-70 ↑↑ 9.4% Mortality near newer plants 71-819.4% Mortality near newer plants 71-81 ↓↓ 5.5% Mortality near plants started in 5.5% Mortality near plants started in

57-81 and later shut down57-81 and later shut down Total 1292 deaths.Total 1292 deaths. Statistically significatif.Statistically significatif.

Meta-analyse No. 2: ManganoMeta-analyse No. 2: Mangano CONCLUSIONS.CONCLUSIONS. Radiation effect more severe among babies, children than Radiation effect more severe among babies, children than

adults.adults. Biggest plant has the highest incidence ↑: +29.5%Biggest plant has the highest incidence ↑: +29.5% Association ≠ causality.Association ≠ causality. Bias are possible: Other pollutants ? Demographic Bias are possible: Other pollutants ? Demographic

differences ( poverty – proximity to medical facilities )?differences ( poverty – proximity to medical facilities )? Global context in the USA: Evolution from 1975 to 2004:Global context in the USA: Evolution from 1975 to 2004:

↑ ↑ Incidence of leukemias 28.7%Incidence of leukemias 28.7%↓ ↓ Mortality of 49.0%Mortality of 49.0%

Study No. 3: KiKKStudy No. 3: KiKK CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIASCHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS 16 16 Nuclear power plantsNuclear power plants Germany.Germany. Case-control study.Case-control study. 593 cases / 1766 controls.593 cases / 1766 controls. Government-sponsored andGovernment-sponsored and

results accepted by the Govt.results accepted by the Govt.

Deutsches Arzteblatt International 2008;105(42):725-732

Study No.3: Study No.3: KiKKKiKK

Results:Results:

Study No. 3: KiKKStudy No. 3: KiKK

Study No. 3: KiKKStudy No. 3: KiKK

CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS: Risks are clearly linked to proximity to Risks are clearly linked to proximity to

nuclear reactors.nuclear reactors. Statistically significatif, at ≤ 5 km.Statistically significatif, at ≤ 5 km. Risks appear to extend as far as 70 km to Risks appear to extend as far as 70 km to

the nuclear reactors.the nuclear reactors. Association ≠ causality.Association ≠ causality.

2. 2. MECHANISMS MECHANISMS AND MODELS AND MODELS

USEDUSED

BEIR VII: 2006

2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS

BEIR VII:BEIR VII: USA: National Academy of Sciences.USA: National Academy of Sciences. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure

to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation.to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Effects on health of LET: low linear energy transferEffects on health of LET: low linear energy transfer Most comprehensive study done to date on this Most comprehensive study done to date on this

subject.subject.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html

2. MÉCANISMES ET MODÈLES2. MÉCANISMES ET MODÈLES

Average annual radiation on a population: Average annual radiation on a population:

2.4 mSv/year:2.4 mSv/year:

2. MÉCANISMES ET MODÈLES2. MÉCANISMES ET MODÈLES

Low dose: Low dose: ≤ 100mSv≤ 100mSv CT-scan ( abdomen )= 10-15 mSvCT-scan ( abdomen )= 10-15 mSv Limit for workers: Limit for workers: 50 mSv/y.50 mSv/y. Different hypothesis concerning low dose Different hypothesis concerning low dose

radiation: radiation: Risk Risk == or or ↓↓ (hormesis effect) or (hormesis effect) or ↑↑.. In utero radiation: Risk of cancer ↑ if In utero radiation: Risk of cancer ↑ if

mother receives a dose ≥ 10 mSvmother receives a dose ≥ 10 mSv

* 100 mSv ≈ 100 Gy ≈ 10 rad ≈ 10 REM

2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS

2. MECHANISMS AND 2. MECHANISMS AND MODELSMODELS

More appropriate model: More appropriate model: ‘ ‘Linear No-Threshold’ Linear No-Threshold’ (LNT)(LNT).. Risk is a function of age and sex.Risk is a function of age and sex. There is no thresholdThere is no threshold under which we can say under which we can say

for sure that there is no risk.for sure that there is no risk. 10 mSv10 mSv → → 1/10001/1000 develop cancer. develop cancer. Other possible risks: ↑ Atherosclerosis – CAD – Other possible risks: ↑ Atherosclerosis – CAD –

Stroke – Immunomodulation – Liver diseases – etcStroke – Immunomodulation – Liver diseases – etc But very few data yet.But very few data yet.

2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS Other publications, other estimates:Other publications, other estimates:

Traumatology (‘full body scan’): IfTraumatology (‘full body scan’): If ≥ 100mSv ≥ 100mSv: 1/1000 death : 1/1000 death by thyroid cancer.by thyroid cancer.

Dose Dose 100 mSv100 mSv: risk of death by cancer:: risk of death by cancer:– Baby: 1/100Baby: 1/100– Young adult: 1/200Young adult: 1/200– Adult: 1/1000 ( or 10mSv ≈ 1/10 000 )Adult: 1/1000 ( or 10mSv ≈ 1/10 000 )

Scan abdo-pelvic: Scan abdo-pelvic: 10-20 mSv10-20 mSv: Risk of death:: Risk of death:– Baby: 1/1000Baby: 1/1000– Teenager: 1/2000Teenager: 1/2000– Adult: 1/10 000Adult: 1/10 000

AJR:176.Feb 2001

Brenner DJ. Radiology 2004:232.

Crit Care Med 2009;37:1336

Brenner DJ. NEJM 2007;357:2277

3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM

CHARACTERISTICS:CHARACTERISTICS: Radioactive isotope of hydrogen: Radioactive isotope of hydrogen: 33H.H. ββ emitter short distance. emitter short distance. Generally under the form: tritiated water: Generally under the form: tritiated water: 33HOHHOH Internal emitter: Inhaled / Swallowed.Internal emitter: Inhaled / Swallowed. Biggest emmiter: Biggest emmiter: CanduCandu, ,

Sellafield, La Hague.Sellafield, La Hague.

The hazards of tritium – revisited. Ian Fairlie

Medicine, Conflict and Survival.2008;24(4):306


‘‘THE MISUNDERSTOOD NUCLIDE’THE MISUNDERSTOOD NUCLIDE’

Weak nuclide as Weak nuclide as ββ particle has low energy. particle has low energy. But radiobiological effect (RBE) ↑: But radiobiological effect (RBE) ↑: Low range penetration → cell damage Low range penetration → cell damage ↑↑↑↑.. 33H quickly incorporated in proteins, lipids, and H quickly incorporated in proteins, lipids, and

DNA. → DNA. → ‘OBT’‘OBT’ ( organically bound ) ( organically bound ) 33H RBE = 2 or 3, H RBE = 2 or 3, and and notnot 1. 1.


BEIR VII:BEIR VII: Tritium: Easily fixed on DNATritium: Easily fixed on DNA More fragile cells: Rapid development → More fragile cells: Rapid development →

organogenesis; genetic material.organogenesis; genetic material. Possible results: Possible results: Spontaneous abortions,Spontaneous abortions, sterility, congenital anomalies,sterility, congenital anomalies, hypothyroidism, cancers.hypothyroidism, cancers.


CERRIE REPORT: 2003.CERRIE REPORT: 2003.

Committee formed UK Government.Committee formed UK Government. Internal emitter ‘by excellence’Internal emitter ‘by excellence’ Suggested: dose coefficient ↑ Suggested: dose coefficient ↑ 10-1510-15 for HTO for HTO

( tritiated water )( tritiated water ) Suggested: dose coefficient ↑ by Suggested: dose coefficient ↑ by 55 pour OBT pour OBT

( organically bound tritium )( organically bound tritium )

CEERIE: Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. 9th meeting. London.


AGIR REPORT: 2007AGIR REPORT: 2007

Committee formed by UK GouvernmentCommittee formed by UK Gouvernment Most comprehensive study on Most comprehensive study on 33H.H. RBE between 1.5-3.0. Average = 2.5RBE between 1.5-3.0. Average = 2.5 US EPA has adopted 2.5US EPA has adopted 2.5 AGIR suggests that ICRP AGIR suggests that ICRP ( International Commission on ( International Commission on

Radiological Protection ) Radiological Protection ) should review its should review its recommendations ( that are more recommendations ( that are more

conservative ).conservative ).


OFFICIAL ACCEPTABLE LIMITS:OFFICIAL ACCEPTABLE LIMITS:

Canada-Quebec: Canada-Quebec: 7000 Bq/L7000 Bq/L USA: 740 Bq/LUSA: 740 Bq/L Europe: 100 Bq/LEurope: 100 Bq/L Objective California: Objective California:

1818 Bq/L Bq/L


BAPE REPPORT - March 2005BAPE REPPORT - March 2005

‘‘Canal de rejet’: Canal de rejet’: 420420 Bq/L Bq/L Surface water, winter: Surface water, winter: 60 00060 000 Bq/L Bq/L Underwater: Underwater: 20 00020 000 Bq/L Bq/L ‘‘Eau de résurgence’: Eau de résurgence’: 1 0001 000 Bq/L Bq/L Air: Air: 0.23-1.170.23-1.17 Bq/m Bq/m33 ( N: 0.05 Bq/m ( N: 0.05 Bq/m33 ) ) Milk: Some data Milk: Some data 3030 Bq/L ( N: 5 Bq/L ) Bq/L ( N: 5 Bq/L )

4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES

LIMITS OF EXISTING STUDIESLIMITS OF EXISTING STUDIES

1. RCT: ‘gold-standard’. 1. RCT: ‘gold-standard’. Obviously none.Obviously none.

2. COHORT STUDIES.2. COHORT STUDIES.Confounding factorsConfounding factors / Needs a huge population./ Needs a huge population.

3. CASE-CONTROL STUDIES:3. CASE-CONTROL STUDIES:Bias ( memory, etc… )Bias ( memory, etc… )

4. ECOLOGIC STUDIES4. ECOLOGIC STUDIES Can show a relationship. No cause / effect. Can show a relationship. No cause / effect.


3 OTHER IMPORTANTS POINTS:3 OTHER IMPORTANTS POINTS:

‘‘Healthy worker effect’Healthy worker effect’

StatisticallyStatistically significant. significant.If ‘n’ too small: Even if not statisticallyIf ‘n’ too small: Even if not statisticallysignificant, may be important.significant, may be important.

ClinicallyClinically significant. significant. Deadly disease: Even if small number,Deadly disease: Even if small number,

may be important.may be important.


1. 1. CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA AROUND CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA AROUND CANADIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES 1 & 2. CANADIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES 1 & 2. Clarke et Clarke et al 1989 – 1991al 1989 – 1991

Funded by Canada Atomic Energy Ltd.Funded by Canada Atomic Energy Ltd. Ecologic study.Ecologic study. Radius: 25km from Ontario Power Plants.Radius: 25km from Ontario Power Plants. ‘‘n’ small.n’ small. Phase 1Phase 1: 0-4 y.o. / : 0-4 y.o. / Phase 2Phase 2: Ad 14 y.o..: Ad 14 y.o.. Phase 2: ↑ incidence leukemias, but notPhase 2: ↑ incidence leukemias, but not statistically significantstatistically significant

CRITIQUE: small ‘N’, large radius.CRITIQUE: small ‘N’, large radius.


2. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF FATHERS 2. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF FATHERS TO IONIZING RADIATION AND THE RISK OF TO IONIZING RADIATION AND THE RISK OF LEUKEMIA IN OFFSPRING – A CASE-LEUKEMIA IN OFFSPRING – A CASE-CONTROL STUDY. McLaughlin et al. 1992.CONTROL STUDY. McLaughlin et al. 1992.

112 children with cancer and 890 controls.112 children with cancer and 890 controls. Children living near a nuclear plant 1950-1988Children living near a nuclear plant 1950-1988 ‘ ‘Total body’ exposure, tritium, radon and radon ‘progeny’.Total body’ exposure, tritium, radon and radon ‘progeny’. ↑ ↑ Incidence of leukemiaIncidence of leukemia, mostly among , mostly among children of fathers working inchildren of fathers working in uranium mines. Not statistically uranium mines. Not statistically significant ( small ‘n’ ).significant ( small ‘n’ ).

4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES 3. TRITIUM RELEASES FROM THE PICKERING 3. TRITIUM RELEASES FROM THE PICKERING

NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AND BIRTH NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AND BIRTH DEFECTS AND INFANT MORTALITY IN NEARBY DEFECTS AND INFANT MORTALITY IN NEARBY COMMUNITIES 1971-1988. Johnson & Rouleau 1991.COMMUNITIES 1971-1988. Johnson & Rouleau 1991.

Ecological study. Congenital malformations, neonatal Ecological study. Congenital malformations, neonatal mortality, spontaneous abortions.mortality, spontaneous abortions.

25 km from Pickering25 km from Pickering ↑ ↑ Stat. significantStat. significant: Down Syndrome,: Down Syndrome, correlation with tritium air.correlation with tritium air. AssociationAssociation: Malformation CNS : Malformation CNS and tritium air.and tritium air. Small ‘n’, hence correlations. NothingSmall ‘n’, hence correlations. Nothing is statistically significant.is statistically significant.


4. RISK OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES IN CHILDERN 4. RISK OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES IN CHILDERN OF PARENTS OCCUPATIONALLY EXPOSED TO LOW OF PARENTS OCCUPATIONALLY EXPOSED TO LOW LEVEL IONIZING RADIATION. Green et al. 1997LEVEL IONIZING RADIATION. Green et al. 1997

Case-control.Case-control. Financed by Ontario-Hydro.Financed by Ontario-Hydro. Fathers of children born 1979-1986 with congenital anomaly.Fathers of children born 1979-1986 with congenital anomaly. Vs other fathers.Vs other fathers. Father’s radiation dose ?Father’s radiation dose ? ↑ ↑ Irradiation amongst fathers children withIrradiation amongst fathers children with congenital anomaly.congenital anomaly. Small ‘n’. Not statistically significant.Small ‘n’. Not statistically significant.


5. ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY AMONG CANADIAN 5. ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY AMONG CANADIAN NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY WORKERS AFTER NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY WORKERS AFTER CHRONIC LOW-DOSE EXPOSURE TO IONIZING CHRONIC LOW-DOSE EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION: Zablotska et al. 2004RADIATION: Zablotska et al. 2004

45 000 workers.45 000 workers. Ontario, Quebec, New BrunswickOntario, Quebec, New Brunswick 1957-19941957-1994 Leukemia death ↑ function of the received radiation doseLeukemia death ↑ function of the received radiation dose LEUKEMIA: LEUKEMIA: ERR / Sv: 52.5ERR / Sv: 52.5 Statistically significant Statistically significant SOLID CANCERS : SOLID CANCERS : ERR / Sv: 2.8ERR / Sv: 2.8 Almost stat. signif. Almost stat. signif.


5. Zablotska et al study. 2004. F.Up5. Zablotska et al study. 2004. F.Up Table 5:Table 5:

4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES 6. RADIATION AND HEALTH IN DURHAM 6. RADIATION AND HEALTH IN DURHAM

REGION STUDY. Whitby, Ontario. 2007.REGION STUDY. Whitby, Ontario. 2007.

Ecologic. Pickering et Darlington areas.Ecologic. Pickering et Darlington areas. Impossible to conclude that there is a causal link.Impossible to conclude that there is a causal link. Chromosomic anomalies and cancersChromosomic anomalies and cancers Linked by municipalities, not by real proximity to a nuclear plant. Linked by municipalities, not by real proximity to a nuclear plant. People who have always been People who have always been

living there, newcomers, people living there, newcomers, people

who moved out of the area.who moved out of the area. Data started in 1983 ( PickeringData started in 1983 ( Pickering

opened in 1971 )opened in 1971 )

4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES 6. DURHAM Study 2007. F.Up6. DURHAM Study 2007. F.Up

RESULTS:RESULTS:

↑↑ Statistically significant neural tube defect 81-92 à 03-04.Statistically significant neural tube defect 81-92 à 03-04. ↑↑ Incidence Down.Incidence Down. ↑↑ Significant leukemia amongst ♂ in Darlington 1993-04.Significant leukemia amongst ♂ in Darlington 1993-04. ↑↑ Significant cancer thyroid amongst ♂ in Significant cancer thyroid amongst ♂ in Ajax-Pickering.Ajax-Pickering. ↑↑ Marked incidence of cancers amongst ♀ and ♂ Marked incidence of cancers amongst ♀ and ♂ after the opening of Darlington.after the opening of Darlington. ↑↑ Breat cancers in Ajax-Pickering 1981-92.Breat cancers in Ajax-Pickering 1981-92. ↑↑ Incidence of multiple myeloma amongst ♀ and ♂ inIncidence of multiple myeloma amongst ♀ and ♂ in Durham and Oshawa-Whitby.Durham and Oshawa-Whitby.

CONCLUSIONS - CONCLUSIONS - INTERNATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AND CANADIAN STUDIESCANADIAN STUDIES

Oldest studies:Oldest studies:– Methodology poorer.Methodology poorer.– Small ‘n’.Small ‘n’.– Tendencies in the majority of studies.Tendencies in the majority of studies.

More recent studies: The last 5 years:More recent studies: The last 5 years:– Methodology has improved.Methodology has improved.– Meta-analysis.Meta-analysis.– Statistically significant results.Statistically significant results.– Very few Canadian studies – And the Canadian Commission on Nuclear Very few Canadian studies – And the Canadian Commission on Nuclear

Safety does not plan nor want to do anyone in the future !Safety does not plan nor want to do anyone in the future !

5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?

BAPE 2005:BAPE 2005:– Refurbishment of G-2 does Refurbishment of G-2 does

notnot have to be submited to have to be submited to any environmental any environmental assessment !assessment !

– Public debate is an absolute Public debate is an absolute necessitynecessity

– Public Health Department of Public Health Department of the Mauricie area: Same the Mauricie area: Same position.position.

5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ? August 2008August 2008: Quebec Govt. : Quebec Govt.

announces the refurbishment of announces the refurbishment of G-2.G-2.

Dozens of environmental groups Dozens of environmental groups protest in the medias.protest in the medias.

Creation of the Creation of the Mouvement pour Mouvement pour Sortir le Québec du NucléaireSortir le Québec du Nucléaire: : More that 80 groups join the More that 80 groups join the coalition.coalition.

October 2008October 2008: Letter HPGS: : Letter HPGS: É Notebaert and 34 physicians:É Notebaert and 34 physicians: Asking a moratorium on the project Asking a moratorium on the project

and a public debate about G-2.and a public debate about G-2.


January 2009January 2009: Canadian Commission on Nuclear Safety : Canadian Commission on Nuclear Safety Public relations operation in the Bécancour area.Public relations operation in the Bécancour area.

February 2009February 2009: Creation of TAP: Tritium Allerte Publique: Creation of TAP: Tritium Allerte Publique

Marsh 2009Marsh 2009: Québec-Sciences: : Québec-Sciences: Spécial No. Nuclear energy.Spécial No. Nuclear energy.

Marsh 2009Marsh 2009: Sept-Iles: : Sept-Iles: Citizens are opposed to nuclearCitizens are opposed to nuclear mining in the area.mining in the area.


May 2009:May 2009: City of Amqui City of Amqui joins the MSQN.joins the MSQN.

May 2009May 2009: : HPGSHPGS wrote wrote to 1300 physicians regions to 1300 physicians regions of G-2 and Sept-Ilesof G-2 and Sept-Iles

May 2009May 2009: Sept-Iles: Forum on : Sept-Iles: Forum on uraniumuranium

May 2009May 2009: Trois-Rivières: People in : Trois-Rivières: People in the streets.the streets.

5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ? May 2009: May 2009: Union des Municipalités du Québec Union des Municipalités du Québec is in favor of is in favor of

the cessation of nuclear energy in quebec.the cessation of nuclear energy in quebec.

June 2009: June 2009: Quebec Govt refuses the long term disposal of Quebec Govt refuses the long term disposal of nuclear wastes in the province.nuclear wastes in the province.

June 2009: June 2009: HPGSHPGS asks the CCNS asks the CCNS to correct what it publicly declared:to correct what it publicly declared: That there is no risk to human That there is no risk to human health ≤100mSvhealth ≤100mSv

July 2009: July 2009: HPGSHPGS asks the Quebec asks the Quebec Govt to reconsider its standards for Govt to reconsider its standards for acceptable acceptable 33H in water ( 7000Bq/L).H in water ( 7000Bq/L).

5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ? July 2009: July 2009: Quebec Govt announcesQuebec Govt announces

that it will review all the Hydro-Quebecthat it will review all the Hydro-Quebec

‘ ‘STRATEGIC PLAN’ this fall.STRATEGIC PLAN’ this fall.

September 2009: September 2009: Campaign launched:Campaign launched:

Avecenergie.com of the Fondation-RivièresAvecenergie.com of the Fondation-Rivières

and NatureQuébec: No place for nuclear energy.and NatureQuébec: No place for nuclear energy.

• October 2009: Conference HPGS - Mouvement Vert Mauricie – Artistes pour la Paix : Pour Un Québec Vert Hors du Nucléaire.

6. CONCLUSIONS6. CONCLUSIONS

New studies of a better quality and meta-New studies of a better quality and meta-analysis confirm that there are analysis confirm that there are very serious very serious health risks with nuclear energy.health risks with nuclear energy.

BEIR VII model: BEIR VII model: LNT LNT widely accepted. widely accepted. There is no such thing as a totally safe level.There is no such thing as a totally safe level.

TritiumTritium levels in H levels in H2O should be immediately lowered to safer standards..

6. CONCLUSIONS6. CONCLUSIONS Intergenerational principle of equity.Intergenerational principle of equity.

Many other issues not discussed here: Nuclear Many other issues not discussed here: Nuclear wastes; renewable energies to develop; risks of wastes; renewable energies to develop; risks of accidents; terrorism; links with nuclear weapons; accidents; terrorism; links with nuclear weapons; costs; etc…costs; etc…

Nuclear energy is becoming a ‘hot topic’ now in Nuclear energy is becoming a ‘hot topic’ now in Quebec. Getting very political. Quebec. Getting very political.

There is a real possibility of success.There is a real possibility of success.

QUESTIONS ?QUESTIONS ?

NUCLEAR ENERGY AND HEALTH RISKS A QUEBEC PERSPECTIVE ÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MSc President, HPGS (...

Documents

Transcript of NUCLEAR ENERGY AND HEALTH RISKS A QUEBEC PERSPECTIVE ÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MSc President, HPGS (...