Ian Fairlie on Daviesxetcal cancer study

A recent UK study Davies et al (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf107 has concluded that no increased cancers occur near UK nuclear facilities.

This is my initial quick response to this study. In my view, the new study has several limitations which inhibit its use a guide to nuclear policy. First, as the authors admit, it’s an ecological study – the weakest kind of epidemiological study which just looks at incidence data from UK National Statistical tables. It is much better (but more time-consuming and expensive) to conduct a case-control study, or even better a cohort study. But their discussion refrains from discussing in detail the much better 2008 German KIKK study which was a case-control study and which actually observed a doubling of leuk risks and a 60% increase in solid cancer risks near all German NPPs.Second the study’s methodology is flawed for several reasons. The authors chose (or were instructed to use) a large 25 km radius around UK NPPs even though the better KiKK study showed that almost all cancer cases resided much closer to the NPPs ie within 5 km with very few cases beyond. Also, almost all UK nuclear facilities are on the coast. That means about half the catchment areas here consist of the sea and of course there are no cancer cases there. The results are that the signal (cancer cases) is diluted …and therefore no increases are detected. It’s almost as if the study were constructed with the aim of not finding any increases. This is not good science. Third the study refrains from discussing many scientific references by Korblein, by Laurier et al (one is mentioned but their more important ones are not), by myself, and by others, and as stated above the Kikk study. This is evidence of a biased approach, sorry to say.

IanFairlie,org 16th July 2025

https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/new-study-on-cancers-near-uk-nuclear-facilities/