David had a file from the CIU [Cancer Intelligence Unit] of breast cancer incidence (registrations) for 1988-97 by ward, age and sex. We do not have the population figures for the particular ward boundaries used in that file except for the most recent years. I have had a quick and dirty look at standardised rates using populations at 1/1/2001, within Somerset (ie using the overall Somerset rates as the standard and applying them to the individual ward populations to get the expected number of incident cases, then comparing them with the observed). I know the population distribution has changed since 1988 with more in the older age groups, but I don't have any evidence that Somerset as a whole will have changed in a different way to the individual wards. As I say, quick and dirty.

Burnham North has a slightly higher incidence rate, but it is not significantly higher than Somerset as a whole."

... a statistically significant excess.

---

The British public has shown a remarkable tolerance towards the nuclear industry given the continued question marks over its safety. What a pity then that fresh questions are being raised about whether that tolerance has been misplaced.

The latest accusations about cancer rates in Burnham North, near the Hinkley Point nuclear power stations, are serious and must not simply be dismissed. When it comes to the old saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics, people are understandably nervous about being bamboozled with science.

Dr Chris Busby, the man behind the latest claims that breast cancer is a worrying 30 per cent higher than previously thought, is not a crank, otherwise he would not be on a Government body looking at the effects of radiation.

There would be little point in his making his claims unless he was pretty convinced he was right. He would risk professional humiliation. Dr Busby says that Somerset Health Authority compiled its statistics based on the wrong population figures. If he is wrong then it should be very easy to prove.

If he is right, then serious questions arise, like how such a mistake occurred, or whether it was a mistake at all, and not just a more convenient basis from which to compile statistics.

There may well be other contributing factors behind the breast cancer rates, and if those questions have been asked the public has a right to know the answers. If they have not been asked the public has a right to know why not.

Dr Busby has also asked the health authority to publish statistics on people with a current diagnosis of cancer because he believes this is a more accurate way of pinpointing a potential problem than mere mortality rates. Most people would feel that is perfectly reasonable, and be suspicious about the reasons for refusing his request.

The nuclear industry wants a third reactor at Hinkley. Its go-ahead should be conditional on public satisfaction about responses to the latest questions.

This week Dr. Chris Busby, a "leading radiation expert", claimed he had found breast cancer was 30 per cent higher than the national average in the seaside town of Burnham.

Anti-nuclear campaigners also suggested that Dr. Busby found above average deaths from breast cancer around the Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

Dr. Busby's conclusions and their association with Hinkley Point were reached after he scrutinised data from Somerset health authority.

And he said that the authority's experts got its sums wrong in estimating that the cancer rate was only 17 per cent higher than average.

He claims that health authority experts used the wrong population data. And even more preposterous is Dr. Busby's suggestion that public health doctors had this evidence but kept it secret.

The health authority did provide Dr. Busby with extensive information about breast cancer in Burnham.

Figures were supplied showing the actual deaths from breast cancer - 23 between 1995 and 1999 - and figures for the registered incidence of breast cancer based on the most up- to-date information available (The LLRC site manager cannot refrain from commenting that this is a lie - Busby's reply is far too restrained on this point.)

Lets have a look at the facts (site manager's emphasis!) behind the figures.

Cancer, including breast cancer, can take many years to develop.

Burnham is a popular retirement area for older citizens, some of whom have lived most of their lives in other parts of the country before moving to the area. In the light of this most recent publicity the authority's analysts have again revisited the data.

But again we maintain that our calculations from official records still show that Burnham North has 17 per cent more breast cancer cases than the county average. Burnham South has four per cent fewer.

The authority has never concealed or refuted this.

The figure is higher than we would have expected, but not so high as to indicate that there is a significant health problem in this community.

When calculations are extrapolated from the average incidence of a disease there will always be some communities showing higher or lower than average figures.

When a large number of comparisons are made with an average, by the nature of statistics it is not unusual for a few of them to appear extreme.

In fact there are other areas of Somerset, nowhere near the Hinkley Point power station or its outflow, that have higher cancer death rates than the national average.

Health experts have also seen no scientific evidence to support a hypothesis that an increase in reported cases of breast cancer could be attributable to radioactive discharges from the station.

The health authority's experts have never attempted to hide or play down health statistics.

The authority's analysts do not know what precise mathematical calculations Dr. Busby has used to reach his conclusions but believe he might have made calculations based on flawed assumptions.

A mathematical calculation of the expected incidence of breast cancer in Burnham and other areas in Somerset is extrapolated from countrywide recorded figures, based on the age distribution in the specific population.

This is then compared with the number actually recorded.

The figures given to Dr. Busby for breast cancer cases were 61 at Burnham North between 1988 and 1997 when 52.12 would have been expected, and 50 in Burnham South when 52.16 was the projected figure.

The expected, 52, and those observed - 61, which is 17 per cent above expected - are accurate.

Dr. Busby is wrong when he asserts that health authority experts used newer population data based on the 2001 census instead of the 1991 census in an attempt to make the statistical incidence of the disease appear smaller.

What possible motive could doctors, with statutory responsibility for the health of the community, have for doing this?

The Cancer Intelligence Unit gave us information on the incidence of breast cancer based on the patient's council ward, as defined by boundaries in 1996.

We do not have accurate population distribution figures foe these 1996 wards, for the early years of the time period.

Hence we used the earliest accurate population distribution figures that we had. In 1991 population figures were gathered by parish. But in 1996 new ward boundaries were drawn up.

There is no way to map information for any given postcode area from the old parishes to the new wards.

We assumed that the relative differences in population across the county did not change much in the years 1988 to 1997.

Public health experts with Somerset health authority - now Dorset & Somerset health authority - have previously advised Dr. Busby that we would investigate any new information or statistics which suggested there was a significantly higher risk to the health of women in Burnham.

The same offer would apply to any robust scientific evidence that showed a likely link with increased breast cancer and radioactive emissions from Hinkley Point power station. To date we have seen no such evidence.