Subtitle: $8 Million Is Too Costly to Study Nuclear-Caused Cancer
The NRC has cancelled an $8 million study that would have determined, then published, the statistics on greater-than-normal incidences of diseases among persons, especially children, living within close distances of nuclear power plants. The technology and data is available for the study, but NRC chose not to allocate funding to the study. Predictably, nuclear advocates cheered, and nuclear opponents are disappointed. see link to the article.
An earlier (1991) study of health effects near nuclear plants was fatally flawed by design, and its results are not surprising.
Quoting the article: "Among the 1991 study’s many problems, according to scientists who were designing the new probe:
•"It tracked mortality rates based on where people died, rather than where they lived before getting cancer. That makes it hard to determine true lifetime exposure.
• "It tracked deaths, rather than total cancer cases. That may downplay the full health impact of living near a reactor, since many cancer patients survive.
• "It used countywide data to reach conclusions – a blunt instrument that may again downplay the impact on those living closest to a reactor. Residents in La Habra and San Clemente live in the same county – but few would argue that they had the same exposure to San Onofre. (Note, San Clemente is only a few miles from SONGS, while La Habra is approximately 40 miles away.)
"To remedy all that, the NRC asked the NAS (National Academy of Science) to evaluate cancer diagnosis rates, not just cancer deaths; and to explore how to divide the areas around nuclear facilities into geographical units smaller than counties. The NAS made no bones about the effort being difficult and time-consuming, but said it could be done."
This is certainly an area where citizen volunteers - qualified and motivated - should step forward to perform this study pro-bono. However, it is a shame that the US government cannot find the $8 million to perform the initial study of 7 reactors. In an era where government spending, and borrowing, is full of studies for irrelevant issues, this one is certainly deserving of funding.
See this link for a more detailed article on nuclear power and radiation health effects.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Showing posts with label radiation sickness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation sickness. Show all posts
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 20
Subtitle: Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
This article 20 begins five articles on what may be the most serious
nuclear plant disasters and near-disasters: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island,
Fukushima, San Onofre, and St. Lucie. Many
others could be included, from countries around the world. One reference lists more than 80 serious nuclear
power incidents. The US’ Nuclear
Regulatory Commission lists 70 incidents in the past four years in the US alone
that required the NRC to send a special investigation team to the plant, or an
augmented investigation team. The
Chernobyl article begins with a brief summary or overview of the facts, taken from the NRC's "Report on the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station 1986," then
commentary afterward.
 |
| Radiation Plume from Chernobyl credit: BBC |
Previous articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasized the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen) safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two) nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie, (twenty-five) the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act. Additional articles will include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them. Links to each article in TANP series are included at the end of this article.
Overview, from NRC Report, Section 4.1 (pg 124)
(quote) “The accident occurred during a test of the turbine
generator system. This test was designed
to demonstrate that following a reactor trip, with the resulting loss of onsite
power and isolation of the steam supply to the turbine, the rotating inertia of
the turbine generator would be sufficient to generate enough electrical power
to energize certain safety systems until the diesel generator system could be
started and accept the electrical loads. This test had been performed earlier at
similar plants (Russian). The specific
purpose of this test was to determine if a new generator magnetic field
regulator would maintain the voltage output from the generator for a longer
period.
In the process of establishing the test conditions for the
reactor, the operators brought the plant to an unstable operating
condition. However, for a number of
reasons, the operators chose to run the test from this unstable condition. To prevent the reactor from automatically
shutting down, the operators purposely bypassed several systems important to
safety. The role of the operator in this
accident is discussed in Chapter 5.
With the safety systems bypassed, the plant was in an
unstable and vulnerable condition. The
most prominent parameter of this unstable condition was the positive void
reactivity coefficient. This coefficient
allowed the reactivity to increase as the volume of steam increased in the
core. Other significant parameters
included the low initial power level, low subcooling, low initial steam void
fraction in the core, fuel burnup condition, and control system
characteristics. The design characteristics
of the Chernobyl plant are detailed in Chapter 2.
The initiation of the test caused the steam volume in the
core to increase. Under the unique test
conditions (for which the plant was not designed), and with the safety systems
bypassed, a significant insertion [? Increase?] of reactivity resulted. The resulting power increase produced
additional steam voids which added reactivity and further increased the
power. Evaluations to date indicate the
reactor was brought to a prompt critical condition. Assessment of Soviet (and other) analyses also
indicates that the energy deposition in the fuel was sufficient to melt some of
the fuel. The analyses to date suggest
the following possible sequence of events.
The rapid expansion associated with melting, quickly ruptured the fuel
cladding and injected fragmented and molten fuel into the coolant channel. The interaction of the coolant with the hot
fuel fragments produced steam very rapidly.
The high temperatures and rapid production of steam quickly over-pressurized
the pressure tubes in the core region. The pressure tubes then failed and
over-pressured the cavity region around the graphite blocks. Sufficient force was generated to lift the
top plate off the reactor and possibly to fail the reactor building and eject
core material. This postulated sequence
of events can be associated with the first “explosion” heard by operators at
the plant. A second “explosion” was
reported to have occurred approximately 3 seconds after the initial one.
Various speculations on the source of this noise include a
second criticality, a hydrogen detonation, or even an echo or
reverberation.
In summary, the event was caused by a combination of
procedural and management deficiencies, human errors, and unique design
characteristics. “ (end quote) see link
Analysis
For the non-technical readers on SLB, a brief deconstruction of the above is in order. The test was to determine if the generators had enough inertia to keep spinning and generate power, even though steam was shut off to the turbine, to keep emergency systems energized until the diesel-powered generators could be started and brought up to speed.
The plan was to run the reactor at part-load, which would have tripped the existing safety systems into a shut-down. The safety systems were therefore disabled. However, the reactor load was far below the planned load. The reactor went into a mode that had more steam bubbles than normal, which is dangerous because steam does not slow down fission products such as neutrons. This is the "positive void reactivity coefficient" mentioned above. Also, the operators pulled the control rods, almost all of them, out of the reactor. The resulting power surge caused the reactor to go critical, which melted down part of the nuclear fuel and caused not only an explosion, but the graphite parts of the reactor to catch fire.
Analysis
For the non-technical readers on SLB, a brief deconstruction of the above is in order. The test was to determine if the generators had enough inertia to keep spinning and generate power, even though steam was shut off to the turbine, to keep emergency systems energized until the diesel-powered generators could be started and brought up to speed.
The plan was to run the reactor at part-load, which would have tripped the existing safety systems into a shut-down. The safety systems were therefore disabled. However, the reactor load was far below the planned load. The reactor went into a mode that had more steam bubbles than normal, which is dangerous because steam does not slow down fission products such as neutrons. This is the "positive void reactivity coefficient" mentioned above. Also, the operators pulled the control rods, almost all of them, out of the reactor. The resulting power surge caused the reactor to go critical, which melted down part of the nuclear fuel and caused not only an explosion, but the graphite parts of the reactor to catch fire.
Radiation Worldwide
The core explosion, fire, and residual heat from the burning
reactor core (that lasted several days) released huge amounts of radioactive
materials into the atmosphere. The plume
of airborne particles flew high above the Earth, in a westerly and northerly
direction, and tripped radiation monitors in several countries as it circled
the globe. One of the first countries the plume reached
was Poland on April 26 and 27, 1986. Almost all of Europe was impacted with radiation
levels many times higher than normal.
The radiation plume eventually reached almost every northern hemisphere
country.
Personally, I was working doing consulting engineering with
a contract in West Germany near Dusseldorf.
I finished the initial visit by March 1 of 1986, then returned to the US
to do the office work. A second visit to
Germany in July made me quite nervous, particularly in the food we ate while
there. Everyone was very upset over the
radiation cloud that rained deadly particles down on the entire continent.
From a nuclear power plant safety standpoint, the important
point is that the nuclear power industry has always insisted that their power
plants are safe. Even after Chernobyl
blew up, the argument was “well, that is a Russian design and nobody has any of
those. Besides, the operators went rogue
and operated the plant improperly, which made it explode. That can never happen here.”
The proper response is, “A nuclear plant can never be made
fool-proof. Fools are just too
ingenious.” As shown in part 16 of
TANP, operators in western nuclear plants make plenty of mistakes, not only in
design but in operation, training, maintenance, parts replacement, security
measures, even mundane chores like tightening bolts to the proper torque.
Health Issues
At Chernobyl, 28 workers died from acute radiation poisoning
within 4 months of the explosion. Many
others have died since, but a direct link to Chernobyl radiation exposure
is unclear. The World Health Organization, WHO, estimates 240,000
workers were exposed to high levels of radiation while cleaning up the
radioactive debris. Another 346,000
people were evacuated and relocated away from the radioactive zone near the
plant. see link
WHO states that greater incidence of thyroid cancer was
caused by Chernobyl. There also is
almost a doubling of leukemia cases.
In addition, the radiation caused cataracts in the eyes, increased
deaths from cardio-vascular disease, mental health and psychological trauma.
UPDATE - 6/11/2014
So much more could be written about the Chernobyl disaster. In fact, an internet search turns up nearly 5 million websites with the term "Chernobyl." Hundreds of books about Chernobyl have also been written. Until the multiple-meltdowns at Fukushima, Japan in 2011, Chernobyl was the greatest nuclear disaster of all-time.
From an institutional safety standpoint, Chernobyl refutes many of the nuclear proponents' arguments. First, the plant was subject to regulations in its own country, the USSR. International regulations apparently were largely ignored. Who is to say that future nuclear power plant operators will not do something equally devastating, especially as nuclear plants are built in more and more countries?
Nuclear apologists or proponents are fond of saying that modern plants are secure, have safety systems and backup systems, and have designs that would never allow such an event to happen again. That is mere talk; as mentioned in the Conclusion below, it is only too easy for operators to disable safety systems or ignore warnings, and run the plant in manual mode. What is also apparent from the NRC report linked above is the very, very rapid change from quasi-normal operation to reactor criticality, meltdown and explosion. At Chernobyl, the change required only a few seconds. Operators tried desperately to insert some of the control rods, but it was too late.
It is also clear from the NRC even reports that many, if not all nuclear plants in the US run some of their systems in manual mode at times. Nothing can be made to run forever, as parts degrade and fail and must be replaced or repaired. A control system normally has an automatic mode and a manual mode, and only well-trained operators should be allowed to run the systems in manual mode.
What is also apparent from Chernobyl is the industry did not speak out in a timely manner about what happened and the risk to other countries from the radioactive cloud that was headed their way. It is true that the operators in the plant had more things on their mind right about then, if they were still alive after the explosion. However, it was radiation detectors in other countries that first gave the alarm internationally. The extent and magnitude of the event was not known for days. The psychological impact on billions of people was not small. What of the parents of small children, who needed to drink milk? What worries did couples have about future children? What worries did other people have about radiation sickness, or long-term illnesses such as thyroid cancer and other cancers?
The next two articles in TANP discuss two more disasters involving core meltdowns: Three Mile Island and Fukushima. In both instances, like at Chernobyl, a combination of bad design and human error caused major disaster. Fukushima was a bit more complex because a natural disaster, and earthquake with tsunami initiated the events.
-- end update
UPDATE - 6/11/2014
So much more could be written about the Chernobyl disaster. In fact, an internet search turns up nearly 5 million websites with the term "Chernobyl." Hundreds of books about Chernobyl have also been written. Until the multiple-meltdowns at Fukushima, Japan in 2011, Chernobyl was the greatest nuclear disaster of all-time.
From an institutional safety standpoint, Chernobyl refutes many of the nuclear proponents' arguments. First, the plant was subject to regulations in its own country, the USSR. International regulations apparently were largely ignored. Who is to say that future nuclear power plant operators will not do something equally devastating, especially as nuclear plants are built in more and more countries?
Nuclear apologists or proponents are fond of saying that modern plants are secure, have safety systems and backup systems, and have designs that would never allow such an event to happen again. That is mere talk; as mentioned in the Conclusion below, it is only too easy for operators to disable safety systems or ignore warnings, and run the plant in manual mode. What is also apparent from the NRC report linked above is the very, very rapid change from quasi-normal operation to reactor criticality, meltdown and explosion. At Chernobyl, the change required only a few seconds. Operators tried desperately to insert some of the control rods, but it was too late.
It is also clear from the NRC even reports that many, if not all nuclear plants in the US run some of their systems in manual mode at times. Nothing can be made to run forever, as parts degrade and fail and must be replaced or repaired. A control system normally has an automatic mode and a manual mode, and only well-trained operators should be allowed to run the systems in manual mode.
What is also apparent from Chernobyl is the industry did not speak out in a timely manner about what happened and the risk to other countries from the radioactive cloud that was headed their way. It is true that the operators in the plant had more things on their mind right about then, if they were still alive after the explosion. However, it was radiation detectors in other countries that first gave the alarm internationally. The extent and magnitude of the event was not known for days. The psychological impact on billions of people was not small. What of the parents of small children, who needed to drink milk? What worries did couples have about future children? What worries did other people have about radiation sickness, or long-term illnesses such as thyroid cancer and other cancers?
The next two articles in TANP discuss two more disasters involving core meltdowns: Three Mile Island and Fukushima. In both instances, like at Chernobyl, a combination of bad design and human error caused major disaster. Fukushima was a bit more complex because a natural disaster, and earthquake with tsunami initiated the events.
-- end update
Conclusion
Nuclear power advocates insist that the plants are safe,
that modern designs cannot have catastrophic meltdowns. However, it is clear that human error can
easily defeat the best designs, and natural events can overwhelm even the best
operators. Chernobyl operated quite safely until human plans and human errors created the enormous disaster that affected millions of people around the world.
Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links. Additional articles will be linked as they are published.
Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete
Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct
Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water
Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant
Part Six – Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs
Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power
Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules
Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go
Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - this article
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Sunday, June 8, 2014
The Truth About Nuclear Power – Part 19
Subtitle: Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living
Things
[ Update: 9/13/2015- NRC cancels health study (for cancer cases) around nuclear plants, including San Onofre (SONGS in Southern California), citing lack of funding. See more in the discussion below. -- end update]
The topic of radiation sickness and death from nuclear power plants is controversial, and causes heated argument from both sides of the nuclear power issue. Over the decades, the nuclear proponents’ position has changed from “no one has ever been injured”, to “no
The topic of radiation sickness and death from nuclear power plants is controversial, and causes heated argument from both sides of the nuclear power issue. Over the decades, the nuclear proponents’ position has changed from “no one has ever been injured”, to “no
Previous articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasized the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen) safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two) nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie, (twenty-five) the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act. Additional articles will include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them. Links to each article in TANP series are included at the end of this article.
Introduction
This article explores two types of illness or death due to nuclear radiation. First, acute radiation
sickness, and second, long-term effects such as cancer from radiation exposure.
With acute radiation sickness the question is, how much
radiation can a human tolerate, until illness or death occurs? From the Mayo Clinic definition of radiation
sickness: see link
“Radiation sickness is damage to your body caused by a large dose
of radiation often received over a short period of time (acute). The amount of
radiation absorbed by the body — the absorbed dose — determines how sick you'll
be.
Radiation
sickness is also called acute radiation sickness, acute radiation syndrome or
radiation poisoning. Common exposures to low-dose radiation, such as X-ray or
CT examinations, don't cause radiation sickness.
Although
radiation sickness is serious and often fatal, it's rare. Since the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, during World War II, most cases of
radiation sickness have occurred after nuclear industrial accidents such as the
1986 fire that damaged the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl or the 2011
earthquake that damaged the [Fukushima] nuclear power plant on the east coast
of Japan.”
Symptoms of radiation sickness include: nausea and vomiting,
headache, diarrhea, fever, dizziness and disorientation, weakness and fatigue,
hair loss, bloody vomit and stools, infections, poor wound healing, and low
blood pressure.
Radiation dosage is measured in G-ray, which is one joule of
energy deposited in one kilogram of mass. The abbreviation is Gy. An older measurement unit is the “rad” or
abbreviation for “radiation absorbed dose.”
One Gy is equal to 100 rad.
Nuclear medicine, dentistry x-rays, and medical x-rays are not
included here. Only radiation releases
from nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel processing, and fuel research labs, but
not from military power plant such as on submarines or surface ships are discussed in this article.
Disasters and Deaths
From
an article by Wada, K, et. al., in Occupational Environmental Medicine, Aug.
2012 69(8): 599-602, “In the Chernobyl disaster, 134 plant staff and emergency
workers received high doses of radiation ranging from 0.8 to 16 Gy resulting in
acute radiation syndrome, and 28 of them
died within the first 4 months. In contrast, no
workers have exhibited illness due to acute radiation syndrome in the Fukushima
Dai-ichi NPP accident. Almost 99% of the workers at Fukushima were exposed to a
radiation dose of [less than] 100 mSv and the possibility of future adverse health
effects is uncertain." (reference is United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. 2008 see link note:
this article by Wada has excellent references for further reading) (emphasis added)
A famous case in the US is that of Karen Silkwood, who died
before her trial but was exposed to plutonium at her workplace, allegedly due
to inadequate and illegal work practices.
Karen sued her employer, Kerr-McGee but died in a car accident.
Long-term Chronic Effects – Cancers
One of the greatest fears, or concerns, of people is
contracting cancer or having children with birth defects due to nuclear power
plant radiation exposure. A recent case
on point is a lawsuit brought by nearly 80 US sailors against the Japanese
government (dismissed for inability to sue a foreign government), and later
amended to sue only the Japanese utility company, TEPCO, that owns the
Fukushima nuclear plants that melted down in 2011. The sailors worked on USS Ronald Reagan, an
aircraft carrier involved in humanitarian efforts after the earthquake and
tsunami. The sailors allege that they
now suffer from cancer, and at least one had a baby with birth defects. See link
Additionally, investigations have been made over the years
into “cancer clusters,” or areas where more cancers than average occur. It is difficult to sort out the causes, or
establishing but-for causation in the legal sense. Cancer clusters tend to be near population centers,
where multiple cancer-causing agents are known to exist. Nuclear power plants are also near the
population centers, but there are also chemical plants, smelters, and non-nuclear
power plants, among others. A 1991
study gives an excellent overview of cancer studies up to that time, from
nuclear plants. “A National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, March 20, 1991, showed no general increased
risk of death from cancer for people living in
107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The
facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52
commercial nuclear power plants, nine Department of Energy research and weapons
plants, and one commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths
from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the
counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the
startup of the facilities were compared with cancer rates in 292 similar
counties without nuclear facilities (control counties).” See link
However, the NCI 1991 survey admits several issues: they
studied only deaths due to cancer. They
did not have data to conclude if proximity to a nuclear plant was a factor,
saying “the counties may be too large to detect risks
present only in limited areas around the plants.”
Also, the NCI study references a British study
on childhood leukemia incidence that showed increased leukemia cases in
children that lived near nuclear power plants.
See "Cancer Near Nuclear
Installations," David Forman, Paula Cook-Mozaffari, Sarah Darby, et al. Nature, October 8, 1987.
A study by Jablon and Boice, Jr. from 1993 of nuclear plant
workers at one plant stated: “A second follow-up of 9,000 workers at the
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (MD, USA) identified 346 deaths in the years
1969-88, 101 of which were attributed to malignant neoplasms. The original
study had the primary purpose of assessing the feasibility of studies of
workers based upon individual plant and Nuclear Regulatory Commission records.
The average, cumulative, occupational dose through 1984 was low, only 21 mSv,
but ranged up to 470 mSv, with 12 percent of the workers receiving more than 50
mSv. Mortality from most causes of death was low and there was a deficit of
deaths from diseases of the circulatory system. Ionizing radiation exposures
were not related to the probability of death from neoplasms generally or from
any specific form of cancer. There were only two deaths from leukemia, whereas
four were expected at population death rates. Larger numbers of workers,
followed for longer periods of time, are needed to determine the mortality risk
to workers in the nuclear power industry. The difficulties in obtaining dose
information for transient workers were so great, and so time consuming, as to
make questionable the practicability of studying the workers at a large number
of power plants in this way.” See link
UPDATE - 6/9/2014: Cancer rates near Sacramento, CA decreased significantly after the Rancho Seco nuclear plant was shut down. "The first long-term study of the full-population health impacts of the closure of a U.S. nuclear reactor found 4,319 fewer cancers over 20 years, with declines in cancer incidence in 28 of 31 categories – 14 of them statistically significant – including notable drops in cancer for women, Hispanics and children.
Published in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Biomedicine International, the major new article, “Long-term Local Cancer Reductions Following Nuclear Plant Shutdown,” is the work of epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, M.P.H. M.B.A., executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, M.D." -- see link
Approximately 18 million Americans live within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant (5 percent of total population), while 116 million live within 50 miles (almost one-third of total population) -- end update]
[Update- 6/14/2014: Thyroid cancer cases increased in children near Fukushima.
"Medics from Fukushima Medical University tested children's thyroid glands because they are very sensitive to such chemicals as iodine. Thyroid cancer among children is very rare, but 72 children with suspected thyroid cancer have already been identified and this number is expected to grow in the coming years. . . " - Voice of Russia see link -- end update]
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/radio_broadcast/no_program/273403296/
UPDATE - 6/9/2014: Cancer rates near Sacramento, CA decreased significantly after the Rancho Seco nuclear plant was shut down. "The first long-term study of the full-population health impacts of the closure of a U.S. nuclear reactor found 4,319 fewer cancers over 20 years, with declines in cancer incidence in 28 of 31 categories – 14 of them statistically significant – including notable drops in cancer for women, Hispanics and children.
Published in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Biomedicine International, the major new article, “Long-term Local Cancer Reductions Following Nuclear Plant Shutdown,” is the work of epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, M.P.H. M.B.A., executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, M.D." -- see link
Approximately 18 million Americans live within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant (5 percent of total population), while 116 million live within 50 miles (almost one-third of total population) -- end update]
[Update- 6/14/2014: Thyroid cancer cases increased in children near Fukushima.
"Medics from Fukushima Medical University tested children's thyroid glands because they are very sensitive to such chemicals as iodine. Thyroid cancer among children is very rare, but 72 children with suspected thyroid cancer have already been identified and this number is expected to grow in the coming years. . . " - Voice of Russia see link -- end update]
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/radio_broadcast/no_program/273403296/
Conclusion
The effects of ionizing nuclear radiation from nuclear power
plants are real and deadly. It can be
seen, now, why the industry had to change its tune from “no one has ever been
injured,” because in fact hundreds of people died after the Chernobyl
explosion. Nuclear proponents argue
quite vigorously that “Chernobyl can never happen again,” and that argument
will be explored in a future article on TANP.
It is obviously wrong, as a meltdown at Fukushima occurred just a few
years later. Fukushima also exposed
hundreds of workers to nuclear radiation, and it is not yet known how many of
them will ultimately die from radiation exposure, i.e. cancer. Given the unsafe operating practices in US
nuclear power plants, the near meltdowns or near-misses that occur at alarming
frequency (one every 3 weeks, on average), it can be seen that concerns over
cancers, birth defects, and radiation sickness are justified. No matter how the industry spins the facts,
the evidence is clear. Nuclear power is
not only too costly, but it is unsafe.
It causes deaths and fear of agonizing, lingering death from
cancers.
It is a shame that in this modern era with internet and
database capabilities, a comprehensive study cannot be conducted to determine
how many people of all ages contract radiation-related illnesses such as
leukemia, thyroid disease, and other cancers.
It is a certainty that the nuclear industry does not want that
information discovered and published.
[UPDATE 9/13/2015 - the NRC has cancelled a study that would have determined, then published, the statistics on greater-than-normal incidences of diseases among persons, especially children, living within close distances of nuclear power plants. The technology and data is available for the study, but NRC chose not to allocate funding to the study. Predictably, nuclear advocates cheered, and nuclear opponents are disappointed. see link to the article.
An earlier (1991) study of health effects near nuclear plants was fatally flawed by design, and its results are not surprising.
Quoting the article: "Among the study’s many problems, according to scientists who were designing the new probe:
•"It tracked mortality rates based on where people died, rather than where they lived before getting cancer. That makes it hard to determine true lifetime exposure.
• "It tracked deaths, rather than total cancer cases. That may downplay the full health impact of living near a reactor, since many cancer patients survive.
• "It used countywide data to reach conclusions – a blunt instrument that may again downplay the impact on those living closest to a reactor. Residents in La Habra and San Clemente live in the same county – but few would argue that they had the same exposure to San Onofre.
"To remedy all that, the NRC asked the NAS to evaluate cancer diagnosis rates, not just cancer deaths; and to explore how to divide the areas around nuclear facilities into geographical units smaller than counties. The NAS made no bones about the effort being difficult and time-consuming, but said it could be done."
This is certainly an area where citizen volunteers - qualified and motivated - should step forward to perform this study pro-bono. Also, it is a shame that the US government cannot find the $8 million to perform the initial study of 7 reactors. In an era where government spending, and borrowing, is full of studies for irrelevant issues, this one is certainly deserving of funding. --- end update 9/13/2015]
[UPDATE 9/13/2015 - the NRC has cancelled a study that would have determined, then published, the statistics on greater-than-normal incidences of diseases among persons, especially children, living within close distances of nuclear power plants. The technology and data is available for the study, but NRC chose not to allocate funding to the study. Predictably, nuclear advocates cheered, and nuclear opponents are disappointed. see link to the article.
An earlier (1991) study of health effects near nuclear plants was fatally flawed by design, and its results are not surprising.
Quoting the article: "Among the study’s many problems, according to scientists who were designing the new probe:
•"It tracked mortality rates based on where people died, rather than where they lived before getting cancer. That makes it hard to determine true lifetime exposure.
• "It tracked deaths, rather than total cancer cases. That may downplay the full health impact of living near a reactor, since many cancer patients survive.
• "It used countywide data to reach conclusions – a blunt instrument that may again downplay the impact on those living closest to a reactor. Residents in La Habra and San Clemente live in the same county – but few would argue that they had the same exposure to San Onofre.
"To remedy all that, the NRC asked the NAS to evaluate cancer diagnosis rates, not just cancer deaths; and to explore how to divide the areas around nuclear facilities into geographical units smaller than counties. The NAS made no bones about the effort being difficult and time-consuming, but said it could be done."
This is certainly an area where citizen volunteers - qualified and motivated - should step forward to perform this study pro-bono. Also, it is a shame that the US government cannot find the $8 million to perform the initial study of 7 reactors. In an era where government spending, and borrowing, is full of studies for irrelevant issues, this one is certainly deserving of funding. --- end update 9/13/2015]
Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links. Additional articles will be linked as they are published.
Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete
Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct
Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water
Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant
Part Six – Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs
Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power
Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules
Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go
Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe
Part Nineteen - this article
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear
Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants
Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
