• The original report, authored by the Durham Region Health Dept.: Radiation & Health in Durham Region (2.2 Mb PDF).
• And Rosalie Bertell's critique thereof (169 Kb PDF),

are the backdrop for the press conference organized by the IICPH on 10:00 am, Thursday, August 9, 2007 at Queen's Park, Toronto, announced as follows:

Dr. Bertell will present her report and recommendations at the press conference. We anticipate 30 minutes with ample opportunity for questions

The OPG cites the Durham study as proof that there are no health impacts from Pickering B.

As part of the EA of the proposed life-extension of Pickering B Nuclear Generating Station, the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) submitted a Human Health and Technical Support Document in June. In accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is requiring the satisfactory completion of an EA. The final report is expected to be released in the new year.

A more accurate interpretation of the actual health impacts of Pickering B Nuclear Generating Station could result from paying attention to Dr. Bertell's criticisms and recommendations.

Main criticisms are outlined below:

Is the "Radiation and Health in Durham Region Report 2007" (RHDRR 2007) sufficient to allay health worries of residents living near the Pickering and Darlington Nuclear facilities?

• RHDRR 2007 is an ecological study. This is the weakest design of all types of health studies now available to health researchers. The outcome of a study is pre-determined by the study design and methodology. They used the poorest choices available.
• The data base used by the Durham Health Department was prone to error, and required time-consuming extraction of data. Statistics Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Health, responsible for the Health of more than 12 million Canadians, should provide readily accessible and relevant data on both incidence rate and death rate of cancer. This is clearly possible with modern computer technology.
• RHDRR 2007 did not address any of the classical Bradford Criteria for causality of health detriment by a noxious agent, although their study claimed to be an attempt to prove that cancer and birth defects in Durham Region were not being caused by the routine radioactive releases from several major nuclear power generators.
• The Durham Health Department eliminated without justification, consideration of pancreatic cancer (the fifth most common), cardio-vascular disease, and teratogenic (initiated while in utero) diseases or malformation, known to be caused by exposure to ionizing radiation.
• Durham Health Department confused the public by mixing together in a chart:
  1. people's acceptance of medical X-ray, with permission from and benefit for the patient,
  2. deliberate releases of radioactive materials into the air and water from a nuclear generator, randomly contaminating even those who reject this option for electricity, and
  3. natural background radiation which is neither beneficial for nor avoidable by the public.
  These are not comparable.
• The Durham Health Department has failed to become current on the literature documenting the human genetic effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Moreover, it does not have the right to declare cancer the only health effect of radiation which is "of concern" to the public.
• Much of RHDRR 2007 was devoted to blaming "life style", which does little other than interrupt the pathway of toxic environmental hazards for cancer. It did little to convince health professionals that radiation in the public air and water was irrelevant. Breathing and drinking are not optional life style characteristics!
• RHDRR 2007 tried to minimize the international study of atomic workers in 15 countries, and failed to inform the public that CANDU workers had shown more excess cancers than those working in other nuclear reactor types.
• RHDRR 2007 failed to explain its serious methodological flaws to the public. In addition to weak research design and poor data, it used faulty methodology.