Children living near nuclear power stations in the U.K. are not at increased risk of childhood cancers, according to a new analysis.

The research, led by scientists at Imperial College London and the University of Bristol and commissioned by the UK Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), found no evidence of increased risk of childhood cancers among children living near 28 nuclear installations between 1995 and 2016.

Researchers analyzed cancer incidence data for nearly 50,000 cases of childhood leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (LNHL), central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and other solid tumors in children aged 0–14 years.

They looked at data for communities living within 25 kilometers of installations, including those which have been linked to historical concerns about potential health impacts—such as Sellafield in Cumbria and Dounreay in northern Scotland.

Using these data and advanced statistical modeling, they found no increased incidence of childhood cancers in these areas compared to national averages. They also found no evidence that cancer risk increased the closer children lived to the nuclear sites. The findings are published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Dr. Bethan Davies, from Imperial’s School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said, “For many years there have been public concerns about the potential health impacts of living near nuclear installations. Our analysis suggests that children living near these sites today are not at increased risk.”

The latest study builds on decades of research following reports in the 1980s of clusters of cancer cases near nuclear facilities in England, Scotland and Germany—following which, the U.K. Government set up COMARE to advise on the health effects of radiation.

Early investigations confirmed clusters of cases of some cancers near nuclear installations, particularly LNHL.

However, subsequent studies failed to show any direct link between these cases and radiation exposure from nuclear facilities.

In 2016, a COMARE report suggested other potential explanations for these case clusters, including infections introduced due to population mixing in the areas.

The new findings come at a time of renewed interest in nuclear energy as part of the U.K.’s strategy to meet net-zero carbon targets and the government committing £14.2bn to build a new nuclear power station in Suffolk and develop small modular reactors.

The researchers say that while their study offers reassurance, they support COMARE’s recommendations for ongoing surveillance of cancer incidence near nuclear sites.

The authors acknowledge a number of limitations with their study, including the use of residential address at diagnosis as a proxy for exposure.

They were also unable to account for individual-level risk factors, such as genetic or medical conditions. However, they emphasize that the study’s design and comprehensive data make it one of the most detailed assessments to date.

Dr. Davies added, “As the U.K. government announces a multibillion-pound investment for new nuclear energy infrastructure, our findings should provide reassurance that the historical clusters of childhood cancers reported near sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are no longer evident.”

Professor Mireille Toledano, Mohn Chair in Population Child Health in Imperial’s School of Public Health, said, “These findings are both timely and important. As the U.K. and other countries expand their nuclear energy capacity, it’s vital that public health remains a central consideration. It’s reassuring that our study found that the historic case clusters have resolved, but it remains important we continue to monitor public health data around such sites across the U.K. for any emerging trends of concern.”