Push For New
Nuclear Power Sputters, But Old Reactors Still Pose Cancer Risks
|
CHICAGO, Illinois, July 27, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/--
Nuclear reactors in the United States should be phased out,
and replaced by technologies that don�t threaten public health
with the emission of radioactive chemicals, urges the Cancer
Prevention Coalition.
A recent energy bill sponsored by Congressional Republicans
proposed building 100 new nuclear reactors across the United
States in the next 20 years.
The proposal, which would double the current U.S. total of 104
operating nuclear reactors, would amount to a nuclear
renaissance, as no new reactors have been ordered since 1978.
Concerns about global warming gave utilities the idea for this
revival since reactors don�t emit greenhouse gases while
generating power, and utilities have stopped closing old
reactors while proposing 33 new ones to be sited in New England,
throughout the South and Southeast, and in Texas, Utah and
Idaho.
(For a list of applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for approval of new reactors click here.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf)
But this month, two Swedish scientists published an article
concluding that a large increase in nuclear reactors will not
solve global warming.
The utilities, of course, fail to report that greenhouse gases
are emitted throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle, and
operating the reactor itself is the only exception. Both the
nuclear reactor industry and its support industries spew
radioactive materials into local air and water, posing a serious
health hazard, warns Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the
Cancer Prevention Coalition and Professor emeritus Environmental
& Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health.
In the 1970s, Wall Street investors stopped funding new reactor
projects due to cost and safety concerns. Today, these issues
are unchanged, and private investors again gave a thumbs-down to
nuclear power. A 2005 law authorizing $18.5 billion in federal
loan guarantees would only cover two reactors.
The Bush administration was a willing partner in the nuclear
revival. George W. Bush became the first sitting U.S. president
to visit a nuclear plant since a grim-faced President James
Carter toured the damaged Three Mile Island reactor on April 1,
1979.
President Barack Obama has poured cold water on the renaissance.
He rejected a request for $50 billion in loan guarantees in the
stimulus package. Additionally, he rejected further funding for
developing the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain Nevada,
leaving utilities with no place to permanently store their
highly radioactive nuclear waste. It is now being held
temporarily at 55 storage sites licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and at Department of Defense sites and
national laboratories across the country.
The major threat posed by nuclear reactors is not the addition
of new reactors, but continuing to operate old and corroding
ones, says Dr. Epstein. U.S. reactors are granted licenses for
40 years, and many are approaching that mark. Many utilities
have asked regulators to extend their licenses for an additional
20 years.
"Each of the first 52 requests has been given a rubber-stamp
approval, even though operating a 60 year old reactor would be a
huge risk to human health," says Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA,
executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project.
Notable exceptions are state government officials in New York
and New Jersey, who are opposing the attempts to extend licenses
for reactors in their states.
About 80 million Americans in 37 states live within 40 miles of
a nuclear reactor, including residents of New York City,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, Phoenix, Cleveland, and
Boston. "If a meltdown were to occur, safe evacuation would be
impossible and many thousands would suffer from radiation
poisoning or cancer," warns Dr. Epstein. "The horrifying specter
of Chernobyl, or of terrorists attacking a nuclear plant, is not
lost on concerned Americans."
Reactors are a real health threat, not just a potential one, a
fact largely ignored by mainstream media, he declares.
To generate electricity, over 100 radioactive chemicals are
created � among the most dangerous chemicals on Earth, and the
same toxic mix in atomic bomb test fallout. These gases and
particles, including Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and
Plutonium-239, are mostly stored as waste. But some must be
routinely released into air and water. Humans breathe, eat, and
drink them - just as they did bomb fallout - raising the cancer
risk, especially to children.
Industry and government officials argue that reactor emissions
are too small to cause harm. But for years, scientists have
produced study after study documenting high cancer rates near
reactors. For example, a 2007 review of the scientific
literature by researchers from the University of South Carolina
found elevated rates of childhood cancers, particularly leukemia
and brain cancers, in nearly all 17 studies examined. A 2008
study of German reactors was one of the largest ever done, and
it also found high local rates of child cancer.
Mangano and colleagues published a January 2002 article in the
journal "Archives of Environmental Health," showing that local
infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged dramatically right
after shut down whenever a U.S. reactor closed. Because the very
young suffer most from radiation exposures, they benefit most
when exposures are removed. This research indicated that there
would be approximately 18,000 fewer infant deaths and 6,000
fewer child cancer cases over the next 20 years if all nuclear
reactors were closed.
Over half the states in the United States, 31, currently host
nuclear power plants. Illinois has the most with 11,
Pennsylvania has nine, New Jersey has four.
While waiting for the federal government to phase out nuclear
power in favor of safer alternatives, state governments should
act to warn and protect their citizens, urges the Cancer
Prevention Coalition.
Governors have responsibilities to take whatever political
action they can to phase-out nuclear plants. In the first
instance, governors should tell their citizens of the danger.
In 1954, Atomic Energy Chairman Lewis Strauss declared nuclear
power �too cheap to meter.� President Richard Nixon envisioned
that the nation would have 1,000 reactors by this time. But the
dreams of people like Strauss and Nixon were dashed by
staggering costs and built-in dangers.
The attempt to revive this Cold War-era dream has been, and
still is, largely talk. While the talk goes on, the nation is
fast developing technologies like solar and wind power, which
never run out and don�t pollute. Putting millions of Americans
at risk of cancer by hanging on to old reactors � that produce
only 19% of America's electricity and 8% of the country's total
energy � is a reckless gamble. Nuclear reactors in the U.S.
should be phased out, and replaced by options that don�t
threaten public health.
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Chicago, Illinois
www.preventcancer.com
epstein@uic.edu
312-996-2297
Rosalie Bertell, PhD
Founding Member European Committee on Radiation Risk
International Association for Humanitarian Medicine
http://www.iahm.org/eng/home.htm
Founder and President emeritus International Institute of
Concern for Public Health
http://iicph.org/
rosaliebertell@greynun.org
Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA
Executive Director Radiation and Public Health Project
http://www.radiation.org/
Odiejoe@aol.com
|
|