nuclear-news

Is living next to a nuclear reactor bad for your health?

Donna Gilmore, who runs the critical sanonofresafety.org website, said she understands the limitations of the controversial Diablo study, but that the well-vetted French and German leukemia studies should be all the proof we need.

If the NAS eventually finds the same thing, the question will become: What do we do about it?

Researchers consider: How risky is that radiation? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nuclear-607540-diablo-health.html  31 March 14, The baby teeth of kids living near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant contained radioactive Strontium-90 – which can cause bone cancer and leukemia – at levels nearly one-third higher than in the baby teeth of other California kids, says a controversial study released last week.

The big question is: Did it cause bone cancer and leukemia?

Researchers from the National Academy of Sciences will huddle at Irvine’s Beckman Center on Thursday, under the watchful gaze of a few avowed skeptics, to ponder the vexing question that the Diablo study tries to address: Is living next to a nuclear reactor bad for your health?

The NAS has embarked on an extremely complicated, $2 million project probing health data for people living near the now-shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and six similar sites nationwide in a quest to answer this question with scientific precision. It’s taking the show on the road for round-table discussions and Joe Public can participate.

These researchers are trying to suss out how to construct an accurate portrait of the cancer risks posed by living near a nuclear power plant, which is much harder than it sounds. Studies from France and Germany suggest that kids living within 3 miles of nuclear plants have double the risk of developing acute leukemia as those living farther away, and that the peak impact is on children aged 2 to 4; but the U.S. government’s take has historically been, “Don’t worry, be happy.”

The U.S. has relied on a document that’s nearly a quarter-century old for its official position – “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities” – and this new effort is an attempt to rectify that Pollyanna pose.

That said, the infant NAS study is already the object of raging conspiracy theories, with gadflies erupting into screeds about the revolving door between federal lobbyists and federal regulators, the coddling of America’s nuclear industry by America’s nuclear watchdog and predictions that “the results will surely be whitewashed.”

 

And that said, the NAS study is still expected to be more comprehensive than the European studies. It will take several years to finish; is being paid for by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is trying to rise above the bitter bickering attendant to reports like the independent one on Diablo, which has been branded “junk science” by its critics.

That’s one of the reasons the NAS is holding open-to-the-public meetings like the one in Irvine – and part of the reason, perhaps, that the NAS declined to weigh in on the Diablo study.

RADIATION KILLS?

The Diablo study was released last week by the World Business Academy, “a non-profit business think tank, action incubator and network of business and thought leaders.”

So in addition to the disturbing findings in baby teeth bit (which dated from 1979 to 1997), the Diablo report found increases in rates of disease and death in San Luis Obispo County – where Diablo is located – compared with California averages since Diablo’s start-up in the 1980s. That includes increases in infant mortality, child/adolescent cancer deaths and cancer incidence for all ages.

Of course, correlation is not causation. “While many factors can affect disease and death rates, the official public health data presented in this report suggest a probable link between the routine, federally-permitted emissions of radioactivity from the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and elevated health risks among those infants, children and adults living closest to the reactors,” the report concludes.

“These findings strongly suggest that federally-permitted radiation releases pose a health risk to the public. … These data also correspond with earlier studies showing significant declines in local disease and death rates after the shutdown of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in Sacramento County in 1989. This report should be followed by additional health studies … so that the public health implications of nuclear power are fully understood, especially as aging reactors continue to operate.”

JUNK SCIENCE?

The Diablo report was written by Joseph Mangano, executive director of the nonprofit Radiation and Public Health Project in New York, whose work is regularly savaged by the industry. His data is pulled from public sources, he holds master’s degrees in management and public health administration, but he often finds himself on the other side of the scientific establishment as well. After a paper asserting a link between Fukushima and increased childhood deaths in the Pacific Northwest, a Scientific American blog took him to task for cherry-picking data.

“Given Mr. Mangano’s history of discredited reports due to poor science, and that this newer report draws on the previously discredited work, PG&E is not giving this report any consideration,” said Pacific Gas & Electric spokesman Blair Jones by email. “Diablo Canyon Power Plant is a safe and vital energy resource for PG&E’s customers and the state of California. The facility produces clean, carbon-free energy for more than three million people.

“Recent assessments performed by the U.S. nuclear industry’s federal regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), demonstrate Diablo Canyon is being operated safely and in a manner that protects the health and safety of the public.”

The NRC agrees. “The NRC continues to monitor the environment around Diablo Canyon. That monitoring shows the plant is meeting strict NRC standards that ensure the public could not receive any appreciable radiation dose from radioactive material the plant might emit,” spokesman Scott Burnell told us by email.

KILL THE MESSENGER?

Mangano takes the criticism in stride.

“Yes, the industry is savaging the study,” he told us by email. “But I hope a good journalist like you remembers to ask them: What proof do they have that the plant is safe? (Or, why haven’t any studies of health near Diablo Canyon been done since the plant opened in 1984)?

Aren’t they actually criticizing the messenger, and ignoring the message (trends in local disease and death rates, which comes from official sources like the NRC and CDC)? Isn’t the savaging the same as was done to Rachel Carson by the pesticide industry, after her seminal book in 1962 (Silent Spring)? Or Dr. Alice Stewart when she found that a low-dose abdominal X-ray to a pregnant woman nearly doubled the chance the child would die of cancer by age 10 (in 1958)? There are more examples, but both were later upheld and accepted, and led to changes in practice.”

Actually, no, there haven’t been official health studies to measure trends in local disease and death rates lately – which brings us back to the NAS, which is trying, finally, to do that.

Anti-nuclear activist Ace Hoffman of Carlsbad attended the NAS’ last meeting about the study in Irvine, and plans to be at this one as well. He and his wife were the only citizens who spoke during the public comment period.

“I had a brief conversation with one of the scientists who had studied radiation damage all his adult life, mostly at a university in Utah,” Hoffman told us by email. “I complained that we are a long way from finding the true nature of low level radiation damage, and he agreed, but said we are inching closer and closer all the time. …

“This study could – if it’s done right – be a big step towards finding the truth. But invariably, with these sorts of studies, it’s pretty easy to produce statistical garbage, too.”

Donna Gilmore, who runs the critical sanonofresafety.org website, said she understands the limitations of the controversial Diablo study, but that the well-vetted French and German leukemia studies should be all the proof we need.

If the NAS eventually finds the same thing, the question will become: What do we do about it?

March 31, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, radiation