The Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) is located near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California, on approximately 1,000 acres along the Pacific coast. It is the state’s largest single power station and the only operational nuclear plant in California following the 2013 closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

From the Santa Barbara Independent, yesterday:

Just weeks after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved a 20-year license extension for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, scrutiny surrounding the human health impacts from radiation have emerged from both academia and Diablo opponents. A recent Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analysis found higher cancer mortality rates in U.S. counties located closer to nuclear plants, while a nonprofit-led report questioned whether decades of Diablo Canyon’s operation may be tied to worsening infant health in surrounding San Luis Obispo County. Federal regulators and health officials, however, maintain that radiation exposure from the plant is too low to pose a measurable risk.

At a virtual press conference on April 29 hosted by the nonprofit Radiation and Public Health Project, epidemiologist Joseph Mangano presented an analysis of state data showing San Luis Obispo County’s infant health and mortality have been negatively impacted since plant startup. He was joined by journalist and environmentalist Lance Gould, who moderated the event, and model and activist Christie Brinkley.

Based on publicly available health statistics, the report — “Local Newborn Health Declined As California Nuclear Plant Operates” — states that infant mortality has shifted from a healthy 16-22 percent below the state average in 1968, which is the year plant construction started and such record-keeping began, to 14 percent below average after the plant went into operation in 1985, to about one percent above average today. (Statewide, infant mortality declined from roughly 21 deaths per 1,000 births in 1968 to about 5 per 1,000.) Premature births and birth defects followed similar patterns, with one category of defects reported at 114 percent above the state average.

https://www.independent.com/2026/05/07/questions-emerge-over-infant-health-near-diablo-canyon-as-nuclear-plant-gets-20-year-extension/

While there is research suggesting increased child leukaemia near nuclear plants, government’s and the industry will pick at the statistics to ‘prove’ they are not statistically significant. However, a large gold-standard German study is clear and convincing:

Recently, the KiKK (Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von KernKraftwerken = Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants) study [5, 6] has rekindled the childhood leukemia debate. The KiKK study had been established partly as a result of an earlier study by Körblein and Hoffmann [7] which had found statistically significant increases in solid cancers (54%), and in leukemia (76%) in children aged < 5 within 5 km of 15 German NPP sites. It reported a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias and a 1.6-fold increase in solid (mainly embryonal) cancers among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The web publication [8] of the study in December 2007 resulted in a public outcry and media debate in Germany which has received little attention elsewhere.

The KiKK case-control study commands attention for a number of reasons. The first is its large size: it examined all cancers at all 16 nuclear reactor locations in Germany between 1980 and 2003, including 1,592 under-fives with cancer and 4,735 controls, with 593 under-fives with leukemia and 1,766 controls. This means that the study is statistically strong and its findings statistically significant. Small numbers and weak statistical significance often limit the usefulness of many smaller epidemiological studies.

Second is its authority: it was commissioned in 2003 by the German Government‘s Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection, approximately equivalent to the United States EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation) after requests by German citizen groups. The study was carried out by epidemiology teams from the University of Mainz which could not be accused of being opposed to nuclear power.

Third is the validity of its results, as vouchsafed for by the German Government’s Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz. It officially accepted that children living near nuclear power plants develop cancer and leukemia more frequently than those living further away. It stated [9]

“The present study confirms that in Germany there is a correlation between the distance of the home from the nearest NPP [nuclear power plant] at the time of diagnosis and the risk of developing cancer (particularly leukemia) before the 5th birthday. This study is not able to state which biological risk factors could explain this relationship. Exposure to ionising radiation was neither measured nor modelled. Although previous results could be reproduced by the current study, the present status of radiobiological and epidemiological knowledge does not allow the conclusion that the ionising radiation emitted by German nuclear power stations during normal operation is the cause. This study cannot conclusively clarify whether confounders, selection or randomness play a role in the distance trend observed.”

With particular regard to the new-born, embryos and foetuses:

The study has triggered debates as to the cause(s) of these increased cancers. This article reports on the findings of the KiKK study; discusses past and more recent epidemiological studies of leukemias near nuclear installations around the world, and outlines a possible biological mechanism to explain the increased cancers. This suggests that the observed high rates of infant leukemias may be a teratogenic effect from incorporated radionuclides. Doses from environmental emissions from nuclear reactors to embryos and fetuses in pregnant women near nuclear power stations may be larger than suspected. Hematopoietic tissues appear to be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/fetuses than in newborn babies. Recommendations for advice to local residents and for further research are made.

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1476-069X-8-43?utm_source=chatgpt.com

A failure to consider this last issue, intentional or otherwise, may explain the ability of authorities to refute claims.