Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nuclear Energy,

240 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Nuclear Energy,

  1. 1. NUCLEAR ENERGY ANDNUCLEAR ENERGY AND HEALTH RISKSHEALTH RISKS A QUEBEC PERSPECTIVEA QUEBEC PERSPECTIVE ÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MScÉRIC NOTEBAERT MD, MSc President, 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. RISKS FOR THE GENERALRISKS 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.
  4. 4. 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.
  5. 5. Meta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJMeta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJ European Journal of Cancer Care 2007:16:355-363
  6. 6. 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 ).
  7. 7. Meta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJMeta-analysis No. 1: Baker PJ  CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:  No publication bias.No publication bias.  Incidence: Fixed and randomIncidence: Fixed and random effect: Meta-SIReffect: Meta-SIR all ≥ 1all ≥ 1.. Statistically significant.Statistically significant.  Marked increase in the 0-9Marked increase in the 0-9 y.o. group.y.o. group.  Death risk mainly increasedDeath risk mainly increased in the 0-9 y.o. groupin the 0-9 y.o. group < 16 km.< 16 km.  Association ≠ Cause→effect.Association ≠ Cause→effect.
  8. 8. Meta-analysis No.2: Mangano.Meta-analysis No.2: Mangano.  CHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATESCHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATES  5151 US Nuclear reactorsUS Nuclear reactors  6767 CountiesCounties  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
  9. 9. Meta-analysis No.2: ManganoMeta-analysis No.2: Mangano
  10. 10. 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 in5.5% 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.
  11. 11. Meta-analyse No. 2: ManganoMeta-analyse No. 2: Mangano  CONCLUSIONS.CONCLUSIONS.  Radiation effect more severe among babies, children thanRadiation 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 ? DemographicBias 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%
  12. 12. Study No. 3: KiKKStudy No. 3: KiKK  CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIASCHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS  1616 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
  13. 13. Study No.3:Study No.3: KiKKKiKK Results:Results:
  14. 14. Study No. 3: KiKKStudy No. 3: KiKK
  15. 15. Study No. 3: KiKKStudy No. 3: KiKK  CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:  Risks are clearly linked to proximity toRisks 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 toRisks appear to extend as far as 70 km to the nuclear reactors.the nuclear reactors.  Association ≠ causality.Association ≠ causality.
  16. 16. 2.2. MECHANISMSMECHANISMS AND MODELSAND MODELS USEDUSED BEIR VII: 2006
  17. 17. 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 ExposureCommittee 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 thisMost comprehensive study done to date on this subject.subject. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html
  18. 18. 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:
  19. 19. 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 doseDifferent hypothesis concerning low dose radiation:radiation: RiskRisk == oror ↓↓ (hormesis effect) or(hormesis effect) or ↑↑..  In utero radiation: Risk of cancer ↑ ifIn 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
  20. 20. 2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS
  21. 21. 2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS2. MECHANISMS AND MODELS  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 sayunder 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.
  22. 22. 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.  DoseDose 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
  23. 23. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  CHARACTERISTICS:CHARACTERISTICS:  Radioactive isotope of hydrogen:Radioactive isotope of hydrogen: 33 H.H.  ββ emitter short distance.emitter short distance.  Generally under the form: tritiated water:Generally under the form: tritiated water: 33 HOHHOH  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
  24. 24. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  ‘‘THE MISUNDERSTOOD NUCLIDE’THE MISUNDERSTOOD NUCLIDE’  Weak nuclide asWeak nuclide as ββ particle has low energy.particle has low energy.  But radiobiological effect (RBE) ↑:But radiobiological effect (RBE) ↑: Low range penetration → cell damageLow range penetration → cell damage ↑↑↑↑..  33 H quickly incorporated in proteins, lipids, andH quickly incorporated in proteins, lipids, and DNA. →DNA. → ‘OBT’‘OBT’ ( organically bound )( organically bound )  33 H RBE = 2 or 3,H RBE = 2 or 3, andand notnot 1.1.
  25. 25. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  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.
  26. 26. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  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 HTOfor HTO ( tritiated water )( tritiated water )  Suggested: dose coefficient ↑ bySuggested: dose coefficient ↑ by 55 pour OBTpour OBT ( organically bound tritium )( organically bound tritium ) CEERIE: Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. 9th meeting. London.
  27. 27. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  AGIR REPORT: 2007AGIR REPORT: 2007  Committee formed by UK GouvernmentCommittee formed by UK Gouvernment  Most comprehensive study onMost comprehensive study on 33 H.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 ICRPAGIR suggests that ICRP ( International Commission on( International Commission on Radiological Protection )Radiological Protection ) should review itsshould review its recommendations ( that are morerecommendations ( that are more conservative ).conservative ).
  28. 28. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  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/LBq/L
  29. 29. 3. CANDU AND TRITIUM3. CANDU AND TRITIUM  BAPE REPPORT - March 2005BAPE REPPORT - March 2005  ‘‘Canal de rejet’:Canal de rejet’: 420420 Bq/LBq/L  Surface water, winter:Surface water, winter: 60 00060 000 Bq/LBq/L  Underwater:Underwater: 20 00020 000 Bq/LBq/L  ‘‘Eau de résurgence’:Eau de résurgence’: 1 0001 000 Bq/LBq/L  Air:Air: 0.23-1.170.23-1.17 Bq/mBq/m33 ( N: 0.05 Bq/m( N: 0.05 Bq/m33 ))  Milk: Some dataMilk: Some data 3030 Bq/L ( N: 5 Bq/L )Bq/L ( N: 5 Bq/L )
  30. 30. 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.
  31. 31. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  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 statistically significant, 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.
  32. 32. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  1.1. CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA AROUNDCHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA AROUND CANADIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES 1 & 2.CANADIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES 1 & 2. Clarke etClarke 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.
  33. 33. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  2. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF FATHERS2. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF FATHERS TO IONIZING RADIATION AND THE RISK OFTO 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 statisticallyuranium mines. Not statistically significant ( small ‘n’ ).significant ( small ‘n’ ).
  34. 34. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  3. TRITIUM RELEASES FROM THE PICKERING3. TRITIUM RELEASES FROM THE PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AND BIRTHNUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AND BIRTH DEFECTS AND INFANT MORTALITY IN NEARBYDEFECTS AND INFANT MORTALITY IN NEARBY COMMUNITIES 1971-1988. Johnson & Rouleau 1991.COMMUNITIES 1971-1988. Johnson & Rouleau 1991.  Ecological study. Congenital malformations, neonatalEcological 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.
  35. 35. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  4. RISK OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES IN CHILDERN4. RISK OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES IN CHILDERN OF PARENTS OCCUPATIONALLY EXPOSED TO LOWOF 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.
  36. 36. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  5. ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY AMONG CANADIAN5. ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY AMONG CANADIAN NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY WORKERS AFTERNUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY WORKERS AFTER CHRONIC LOW-DOSE EXPOSURE TO IONIZINGCHRONIC 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 significantStatistically significant  SOLID CANCERS :SOLID CANCERS : ERR / Sv: 2.8ERR / Sv: 2.8 Almost stat. signif.Almost stat. signif.
  37. 37. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  5. Zablotska et al study. 2004. F.Up5. Zablotska et al study. 2004. F.Up  Table 5:Table 5:
  38. 38. 4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES4. SIX CANADIAN STUDIES  6. RADIATION AND HEALTH IN DURHAM6. 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 beenPeople who have always been living there, newcomers, peopleliving 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 )
  39. 39. 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 ♂ inSignificant 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.
  40. 40. CONCLUSIONS -CONCLUSIONS - INTERNATIONAL ANDINTERNATIONAL 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 NuclearVery 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 !
  41. 41. 5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?  BAPE 2005:BAPE 2005: – Refurbishment of G-2 doesRefurbishment of G-2 does notnot have to be submited tohave to be submited to any environmentalany environmental assessment !assessment ! – Public debate is an absolutePublic debate is an absolute necessitynecessity – Public Health Department ofPublic Health Department of the Mauricie area: Samethe Mauricie area: Same position.position.
  42. 42. 5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?  August 2008August 2008: Quebec Govt.: Quebec Govt. announces the refurbishment ofannounces the refurbishment of G-2.G-2.  Dozens of environmental groupsDozens of environmental groups protest in the medias.protest in the medias.  Creation of theCreation of the Mouvement pourMouvement pour Sortir le Québec du NucléaireSortir le Québec du Nucléaire:: More that 80 groups join theMore 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 projectAsking a moratorium on the project and a public debate about G-2.and a public debate about G-2.
  43. 43. 5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?  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.
  44. 44. 5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?  May 2009:May 2009: City of AmquiCity of Amqui joins the MSQN.joins the MSQN.  May 2009May 2009:: HPGSHPGS wrotewrote to 1300 physicians regionsto 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.
  45. 45. 5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?5. AND WHAT ABOUT QUEBEC ?  May 2009:May 2009: Union des Municipalités du QuébecUnion des Municipalités du Québec is in favor ofis 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 ofQuebec Govt refuses the long term disposal of nuclear wastes in the province.nuclear wastes in the province.  June 2009:June 2009: HPGSHPGS asks the CCNSasks the CCNS to correct what it publicly declared:to correct what it publicly declared: That there is no risk to humanThat there is no risk to human health ≤100mSvhealth ≤100mSv  July 2009:July 2009: HPGSHPGS asks the Quebecasks the Quebec Govt to reconsider its standards forGovt to reconsider its standards for acceptableacceptable 33 H in water ( 7000Bq/L).H in water ( 7000Bq/L).
  46. 46. 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.
  47. 47. 6. CONCLUSIONS6. CONCLUSIONS  New studies of a better quality and meta-New studies of a better quality and meta- analysis confirm that there areanalysis confirm that there are very seriousvery serious health risks with nuclear energy.health risks with nuclear energy.  BEIR VII model:BEIR VII model: LNTLNT widely accepted.widely accepted. There is no such thing as a totally safeThere is no such thing as a totally safe level.level.  TritiumTritium levels in Hlevels in H2O should be immediately lowered to safer standards..
  48. 48. 6. CONCLUSIONS6. CONCLUSIONS  Intergenerational principle of equity.Intergenerational principle of equity.  Many other issues not discussed here: NuclearMany other issues not discussed here: Nuclear wastes; renewable energies to develop; risks ofwastes; 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 inNuclear 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.
  49. 49. QUESTIONS ?QUESTIONS ?

×