Leukaemia and Lymphoma (West Cumbria) (Hansard, 15 February 1990)

§ Mr. Freeman

Yes. The results of the case control study, which was commissioned and funded by the Department of Health, have been published today. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

The study was undertaken by the Medical Research Council epidemiology unit at Southampton, in response to the first recommendation of the Black advisory group's report on cancer incidence in West Cumbria.¹

The study documents an association between the excess of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in children living in the vicinity of Sellafield, and employment of the fathers of the affected children at Sellafield over the period 1950 to 1985.

In particular, the study documents an association between the raised incidence in children of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and the recorded level of external radiation dose received by the father before conception of the affected child.

The Government note with concern the results of the study, and recognise the anxieties that it must cause to those who might be at risk. In view of its importance, the results have been referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) for its urgent consideration and preliminary advice, following its next meeting in March.

COMARE will also be considering the study in conjunction with the results of other studies, completed, under way or planned, recommended in the Black report or by COMARE in its second² and third³ reports, and accepted by Government.

The following studies, which have been funded by Government, have already been completed: 'Birth and School Cohort Studies in the area around Sellafield'. 'A reanalysis of the data from the Northern Children's Cancer Registry'.

Other relevant studies already under way include: 'A case control study of young people registered as cases of leukaemia or lymphoma in the Dounreay area'. 'Birth and School Cohort Studies in Thurso and around Dounreay'. 'A case-control study of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in West Berkshire and North Hampshire, in which the Ministry of Defence establishements at Aldermaston and Burghfield are situated'.

Finally, plannned work includes detailed epidemiological studies to obtain more information on the possible health effects in the offspring of parents occupationally exposed to radiation. These studies should start in the near future.

In addition, subject to the agreement of the individuals concerned, the Health and Safety Executive will set up an 399W investigation which will be conducted by the Nuclear Inspectorate in co-operation with British Nuclear Fuels plc and the workforce.

This investigation will examine in detail both the internal and external radiation doses, and chemical occupational exposure histories, of the parents of the affected children. This may help in identifying any common factors which may be relevant.

In the meantime, the nuclear industry will wish to consider this report and the possible implications for its workforce, including the need for counselling.

I am advised that the average annual external radiation doses for workers at Sellafield during the late 1960s and the early 1970s were in the range about 12–13 millisieverts (mSv).

Improvements in plant design and radiation protection standards in the 1970s and 1980s have led to a substantial reduction in average external radiation doses, with four-fold reduction between 1974 and 1989. For 1989 the average annual external dose was about three mSv.

The current statutory annual dose limit for people occupationally exposed to radiation is 50 mSv. The National Radiological Protection Board advised, following new data on cancer induction in exposed individuals, that doses should be kept below 15 mSv per year on average, over a number of years.

The Health and Safety Commission has recently issued a consultative document containing proposals to carry this recommendation forward, by the institution of an investigation into the individual circumstances whenever the average is exceeded. The consultative document also stresses for the same reason the increased need to keep doses as low as reasonably practicable.

Interpretation of this study is not straightforward. Until the results have been confirmed or not, and possible mechanisms elucidated, no definitive statement can be made on the possible risk to individuals.

If the effects are demonstrated to be related to external radiation, then on the basis of the evidence from annual doses, only workers receiving relatively high doses might be at risk. There would be a limited number of such workers in the nuclear industry and industries using industrial radiography. COMARE has been asked to advise on this and will report in due course.

(1) 'Investigation of the possible increased incidence of cancer in West Cumbria'—Report of the Independent Advisory Group, Chairman: Sir Douglas Black. HMSO 1984.
(2) 'Investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people, near the Dounreay Nuclear Estabishment, Caithness, Scotland'—COMARE 2nd Report. HMSO 1988.
`Report on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area, in which are situated the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield'—COMARE 3rd Report. HMSO 1989.