| Cancer rates are higher for people who live near nuclear power plants. That is the blunt conclusion of a new report from a Harvard research team. According to the study, more than 20,000 cancer victims in Massachusetts contracted the cancers because they were living too close to a nuclear power plant. How close is too close? |  |
The study’s summary has this blunt conclusion: “Residential proximity to nuclear plants in Massachusetts is associated with elevated cancer risks, particularly among older adults”
The study, Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, states that as many as 3.3% of all the reported cancers within an 18.6 mile radius of a nuclear power plant may be caused by nuclear power plant radiation. According to the authors: “We estimated 10,815 female and 9,803 male cancer cases attributable to proximity” [to a nuclear power plant].
Harvard’s researchers looked at cancer rates for people living within 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) of a nuclear power plant between the years 2000 and 2018. It noted that there are “… significant associations for lung, prostate, breast, colorectal, bladder, melanoma, leukemia, thyroid, uterine, kidney, laryngeal, pancreatic, oral, esophageal, and Hodgkin lymphoma, with variation by sex and age.”
“We estimated 10,815 female and 9,803 male cancer cases attributable to proximity.” The risk of developing cancer attributable to living near an NPP generally increased with age.
“Our study provides a comprehensive assessment of cancer risks associated with residential proximity to seven
nuclear power plants located within 120 km of Massachusetts ZIP codes’ population centers, covering the
period from 2000 to 2018.”
The study concluded that cancer risks decline sharply for people who live more than 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) from a nuclear power plant. It also noted that cancers attributable to nuclear power plants are more common among older residents, which may indicate that the duration of exposure to a nuclear power plant may be a factor.
The study, was published by the Harvard’s TH Chan Department of Environmental Health.
The primary author of the report was,Yazan Alwadi, and six other PhD students, under the supervision of senior author Petros Koutrakis, professor of environmental science. The study, which used data from the Massachusetts Cancer Registry, showed that cancer rates are higher in zip codes that are close to nuclear power plants. The research also considered and accounted for elevated risks from air pollution and other risk factors.
According to the report, the correlation between local cancer rates and nearby nuclear power plants is an established fact, stating “Radiation from the decay of radionuclides emitted by nuclear plants has been extensively studied and is a well-established risk factor for multiple cancers.” [4, 9, 13, 14, 17, 27]*
The researchers, who evaluated cancer cases near seven nuclear power plants, estimated that 20,600 Massachusetts cancer cases, or roughly 3.3% of all cancers studied, were caused by living within 18.6 miles from a nuclear power plant. The report also showed that the risk of getting cancer declines sharply for people who live more than 30 kilometers from a facility.
According to the researchers, the findings highlight the importance of acknowledging and addressing nuclear energy’s health impacts, particularly at a time when its expansion is being promoted as a solution to climate change. The so-called “renaissance” of last-century nuclear technology is being championed by the United States “Department of War.” The Department, which was formerly dedicated to the national defense,” has released this one-minute propaganda video touting nuclear power in support of Trump’s goals.
For the official Harvard Press Release, click here.
Footnote Four: 4. Bailey M. The new ICRP model for the respiratory tract. Radiat Prot Dosimetry.
1994;53:107–14.
Footnote Nine: 9. Bozigar M, Konstantinoudis G, Zilli Vieira CL, Li L, Alwadi Y, Jones RR, et al.
Domestic radon exposure and childhood cancer risk by site and sex in 727
counties in the United States, 2001–2018. Sci Total Environ. 2024;954:176288.
Footnote Thirteen: 13. Dagle G, Sanders C. Radionuclide injury to the lung. Environ Health Perspect.
1984;55:129–37.
Footnote Fourteen: 14. De Villiers A, Windish J. Lung cancer in a fluorspar mining community: I. radia-
tion, dust, and mortality experience. Occup Environ Med. 1964;21:94–109.
Footnote Seventeen: 17. Gilbert ES. Ionising radiation and cancer risks: what have we learned from
epidemiology? Int J Radiat Biol. 2009;85:467–82.
Footnote Twenty-Seven: 27. Ron E. Ionizing radiation and cancer risk: evidence from epidemiology. Radiat
Res. 1998;150:S30.