Mad Science: The Nuclear Power Experiment by Joseph Mangano

Author:Joseph Mangano
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Bisac Code 1: SCI024000
ISBN: eBook ISBN| 9781935928867
Publisher: OR Books
Published: 2012-09-30T16:00:00+00:00

It is important to stress that useful information about very small health effects, like those associated with very low levels of radiation, is extremely difficult and expensive to obtain. An indirect approach, such as studying populations with higher-level exposures and extrapolating the results to lower levels, tends to be more productive.

Another statement made by Wyngaarden that revealed bias against finding any radiation–cancer link was the following:

The most serious health impact of the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident that can be identified with certainty is mental stress to those living near the plant, particularly pregnant women and families with teenagers and young children.

At the time, nine years after the Three Mile meltdown, not a single journal article examining trends in cancer rates near the reactor had been published.

In July 1990, the federal report was finally finished, and in September of that year, the National Cancer Institute unveiled results of its study, contained in three volumes about seven inches thick. The eight-member committee that directed the study made its conclusion clear, on the very first page of the summary: “The Committee concludes that the survey has produced no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities.”

The NCI study had looked at cancer death rates in 107 counties near sixty-two US nuclear plants (ten weapons and fifty-two power plants) during the years 1950 to 1984, covering 880,028 persons who died of cancer. The basic approach taken used “Standard Mortality Ratios” of local vs. US rates; for example, if a local rate was 2% below the US, the SMR would be 0.98. The study examined SMRs in the periods before and after a nuclear plant began operations, both in the 107 “study” counties and in 321 “control” counties that were demographically similar but geographically distant from any nuclear plant.

Naturally, cheers went up from pro-nuclear advocates, including Michael T. Rossler of the Edison Electric Institute, who said “The study is helpful. It shows there is not a problem to individuals, that there is not a danger from radiation.” Others were not convinced. Kennedy himself commented that the study “is not a clean bill of health for the nuclear industry.” Study conclusions were used for decades after by the nuclear industry as “proof” that reactors operated safely, and did not pose any health problems for local residents.

While it was important that the federal government finally acknowledged the issue of cancer near nuclear plants and produced some research, the study had a number of limitations. A brief summary of these follows:

Mortality Only. The study examined cancer deaths near all sixty-two nuclear plants included, but considered cancer cases near only four of these, because only the states of Connecticut and Iowa had established cancer registries for most of the period 1950–1984.

One-Third of Reactors Excluded. Only nuclear plants that began operations by 1981 were included. This means that of the sixty-five plants (with 104 reactors) now operating, data for twenty-three plants (with thirty-five reactors) started after 1981 were excluded from the study.

Only Data to 1984.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.