> But guess what, increased health issues of people "close" to the place it gets released clearly show that this isn't really the case. At least for the people close by.
There seems to be a survey of the European Commission that implies increased cancer risk around La Hague putting it in relation to the wast disposal. I say it seems because due to articles quoting studies quoted by articles and only listing the article as source and paywalls I can't trace it back without spending a lot of time and or money.
But looking at searches for medical/scientific papers you find very mixed result. Ranging from "there are more cases, but it's statistically not significant" to there is a statistical significant increase but it's not that strong and it's not possible to prove that it's because of radiation exposure (or radiation exposure alone).
Generally it seems that the articles I read had a very different interpretation of "close". As e.g. one of the studies I found, found increased cases for people in a 10km radius around the was disposal factory, which might very well be related to other things then them pumping some of the wast into the sea. Widening the radius caused increases to be non statistic significant, which seems to match with other studies I would.
But disclaimer: I just did a very short dive into it. E.g. I looked only at the abstract & summary/conclusion of papers etc. and spend maybe 20min on it or so. So not very reliable.
EDIT: Looking more into it finding like following quote become more common:
> There is some convincing evidence in childhood leukaemia of a causal role for environmental radiation exposure from recreational activities on beaches. New methods for identifying the environmental pathways, focusing on marine ecosystems, are warranted.
What's good source for this claim?