I had a phone call from a member of the Australian Citizens' Electoral Council this morning. The CEC is the Australian arm of Lyndon La Rouche's group and, as such, this branch is also heavily involved in the promotion of the expansion of nuclear power across the globe. When I questioned the wisdom of promoting such a dangerous and unsustainable form of energy I was assured by the caller that the science surrounding nuclear power is sound. I decided to have yet another look at some of the studies done. To simplify, I focussed on those related to Three Mile Island and specifically on the way the exposure levels of radiation were determined. What I found was a divergence of 'objective' observations clearly at odds with each other. (References 3, 4 and 5 all refer to the one report, the 1990 Hatch-Susser study.]
Harold Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ““They are getting 63 curies per second…[in] the order of three times what they were yesterday, which would put us in the 1200 millirems per hour." [1]
Joseph M Henri Chairman of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation: “To a distance of about five miles. I have got a reading. During one of these burst, releases up over the plant several hours ago, up over the plant about 1200 millirems per hour which seems to calculate out, by the time the plume comes to the ground where people would get it, would be about 120 millirems per hour. Now, that is still below the EPA evacuation trigger levels; on the other hand, it certainly is a pretty husky dose rate to be having off-site [2]
The American Nuclear Society: “in every instance, the level of exposure was deemed to be very low” – an average of approximately 10 millirems and projected maximum dose of 100 millirems. [3]
Jan Beyea (nuclear physicist involved in the Hatch-Susser study): He estimates the maximum was 200 millirems. He said the figure could be up to four times that much, but said that was "very, very unlikely." Average doses in the area northwest of the plant - the direction in which the radiation plume traveled - were about 28 millirems, he said….. Some of the gauges simply were not able to measure amounts as high as what was released, said Jan Beyea…"It was insane," Beyea said of the inadequate monitoring. "It was sort of a sign of the optimism that nothing would ever go bad." [4]
Text from the scientific abstract of the Hatch-Susser study as published in the American Journal of Epidemiology: “the model of accident emissions was validated by readings from off-site dosimeters.” [5]
It is alarming to witness the parallels occuring in the fields of enviromental monitoring with that of the pesticide industry. Industry and government technicians seek out the areas where toxins are most likely to be watered down and base their observations and conclusions on studies in those areas. The vulnerability of individuals to narrow swathes of intense bands of poisons is ignored completely.
At this juncture in time I believe that it is justifiable for one to conclude - on the basis of a long history of disasters and accidents - that nuclear technology has been truly tested 'in the field'. Like many other industrial sectors it has been found wanting and so have the associated regulatory and academic institutions. Governance has simply not kept pace with the dangerous technologies employed by the world's transnational corporations.
[1] Pittburgh Post-Gazette Monday, April 16, 1979. The newspaper published a special report from the Associated Press that included excerpts of tape recordings of the proceedings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission including the transcripts of the taped voices of Harold Denton, Director and Joseph M Henri Chairman of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Their voices were taped on 30th March 1979 as they responded to the enormous release of radioactive gases at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the US. As published in ‘SECRET FALLOUT - LOW-LEVEL RADIATION FROM HIROSHIMA TO THREE-MILE ISLAND – Chapter 18 ‘Too Little Too Late’ by Ernest Sternglass.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp18.html
[2] Pittburgh Post-Gazette Monday, April 16, 1979. The newspaper published a special report from the Associated Press that included excerpts of tape recordings of the proceedings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission including the transcripts of the taped voices of Harold Denton, Director and Joseph M Henri Chairman of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Their voices were taped on 30th March 1979 as they responded to the enormous release of radioactive gases at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the US. As published in ‘SECRET FALLOUT - LOW-LEVEL RADIATION FROM HIROSHIMA TO THREE-MILE ISLAND – Chapter 18 ‘Too Little Too Late’ by Ernest Sternglass.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp18.html
[3] Health Studies Find No Cancer Link to TMI. From the American Nuclear Socity website. Accessed on 26th November 2008.
http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/healthstudies.html
[4] Gaps in research have angered some who were there in 1979
TOM AVRIL / Philadelphia Inquirer 26mar04
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Three-Mile-Island26mar04.htm
[5] American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 132, No. 3: 397-412
Copyright © 1990 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
research-article
CANCER NEAR THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR PLANT: RADIATION EMISSIONS
MAUREEN C. HATCH1,, JAN BEYEA2, JERI W. NIEVES1 and MERVYN SUSSER1,3
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/3/397
1Division of Epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health New York, NY
2National Audubon Society New York, NY
3Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center, Columbia University New York, NY
6 comments:
I don't understand your problem.
No, I'm not just trying to be cute. A radiation cloud is going to act like any other gas cloud. It will have thick spots and thin spots, it will be greater closer to the source and thinner further away. The data gathered is going to differ by location and distance.
Brenda,
Well, identifying supporting nuclear power with the lunatic Lyndon LaRouche is not exactly playing cricket. Yes, there are different accounts, including more seriously, debates over whether anybody died, and if so, how many, from the Three Mile Island accident. Most reports have it that nobody died and there was no increase in cancer rates as a result of it. There was a report that as many as 330 infant and fetus deaths occurred as a result of the accident, although a later Health Department study denied this.
Even if 330 deaths did occur, this is all there is from nuclear power in its half century in the US, aside from some bizarre episodes in production facilities, such as one where a worker exposed his wife and her lover to fuel rods out of jealousy.
This must be put in comparison with the deaths due to the burning of fossil fuels, the main alternative to nuclear for electricity production in practical terms in the US on a large scale. Current estimates put the annual rate of deaths from air pollution in the US at about 70,000. Probably about half that, or at least a third is due to coal burning. Natural gas is not as bad as coal, but is also certainly responsible for thousands of dead per year. This is not counting coal mining accidents and deaths due to black lung disease, and so forth.
Now, wind and solar and so on do not cause the sorts of air pollution deaths that coal or natural gas does (and neither does nuclear, hack, cough), but wind kills birds and bats, and much of its potential is far away from where it is needed. Solar has a long way to go, and some of the solar techs involve extremely polluting substances used in the production of solar tech. So, also not so clean.
So, even the worst account of how much radiation was being emitted out of Three Mile Island is somehow not all that impressive, given that the building of nuclear power plants was completely shut down as a result of this accident in the US. Assuming that if this had not happened, about 10 percent of the electricity produced by coal since 1979 would have been produced by nuclear, that is reducing annual deaths by on the order of 3,000 per year, that gives us a total getting up towards 100,000 extra deaths thanks to the cessation of building nuclear power plants in the US. Wonderful.
Ted Seeber,
Fortunately you don't need to understand 'my problem', just the ones I was referring to in the article. Like, the lack of verifiability of assertions, the contradictions in statements made about the level of radiation exposure, the things that are not ever said (like the existence of thick spots of radiation/pesticides in clouds) etc.
Barkley,
On the subject of deaths that may be related to Three Mile Island, this is what I have found:
Deaths after Three Mile Island accident (end of March 1979):
US Center for Health Statistics for Pennsylvania in May 1979. A SUMMARY
US Center for Health Statistics for Pennsylvania in May 1979 showed the following (per thousand live births): 147 infant deaths in February, 141 in March, 166 in April, 198 in May. At the same time the number of births had declined from 13,589 in March 1979 to 13,201 in May. For the United States as whole the rate of infant deaths per 1000 live births had declined 11 percent between March and May 1979…., “the Pennsylvania figures for March and May representing an increase of 57 deaths, which was more than three times the statistically expected normal fluctuation of about +/- 16, and thus unlikely to occur purely by chance in less than one in a thousand instances.”
The US Vital Statistics for Upstate New York in 1979. A SUMMARY
The US Vital Statistics for Upstate New York in 1979 (north, northwest, and northeast of Harrisburg some 100 to 200 miles away and in the direction the wind was blowing when the heaviest releases of radiation were occurring.) According to these studies of wind direction the expectation was that “The figures for the rest of the state outside of New York City should have gone up, while New York City should either have shown no change or an actual decline….the numbers showed: Between March and May, infant deaths outside New York City climbed an amazing 52 percent, by 63 deaths, from 121 to 184. For New York City during the same period the number declined from 166 to 129. Again, these changes were many times as large as normal fluctuations, and the number of births changed relatively little, or by less than 10 percent.
What about the data for Harrisburg? A SUMMARY.
“only Tokuhata had the data for the 5-mile and 10-mile zones around the plant, and there was no way that I would be able to obtain them…Warren L. Prelesnik, executive vice-president in charge of administration Harrisburg Hospital provided a list of the monthly infant deaths, fetal deaths, stillbirths, and live births in the Harrisburg Hospital for the previous two years. In February, March, and April of 1979, there had only been 1 infant death per month. But for each of the two months of May and June, there were 4. Effectively, since the number of births had not only remained nearly the same but had actually declined slightly, this was more than a fourfold increase in the mortality rate, or of the right magnitude required to fit the observed 50 percent rise in the more distant area of upstate New York. From an average of 5.7 per 1000 live births in the three months of February, March, and April -- before the releases could have had an appreciable effect -- the newborn mortality rate had risen to 24.1 for May and 26.0 for June, an unprecedented summer peak that did not occur the previous year. In fact, for May and June of 1978, there had been a total of only 3 infant deaths, while for the same period in 1979 after the accident, there had been 8.As some of my colleagues with whom I discussed these findings agreed, by themselves the Harrisburg Hospital numbers were of course small, and only marginally significant, representing only about one-third of all the births and deaths in Harrisburg. But taken together with the vastly more significant and independent numbers for all of Pennsylvania, upstate New York, New York City, New Jersey, Maryland, and Ohio, there was now a much greater degree of certainty: It would have been much too much of a coincidence -- perhaps less than one in a million -- for all these different numbers to show the pattern they did.
The time and cause of death due to radiation. What can be expected. SUMMARY
One of the remaining important questions that had to be checked, however, was the time and cause of death? if the excess deaths were connected with the radioactive iodine released from the plant, then they should be associated with underweight births or immaturity, since damage to the fetal thyroid would slow down the normal rapid growth and development of the baby in the last few months before birth. The development of the lungs, which have to be ready to begin breathing at the moment of birth, is one of the most critical phases of late fetal development. Any developmental slowdown would be most life-threatening if it led to the inability of the tiny air sacs in the lungs to inflate and start supplying the blood with oxygen. Failure of the lungs to function properly would therefore lead to immediate symptoms of respiratory distress, and if efforts to treat the baby should not succeed, it would die in a matter of minutes, hours, or days of respiratory insufficiency or hyaline membrane disease. Thus, one would not expect to find as large an increase in spontaneous miscarriages well before birth as newborn deaths within a short time after birth, since the lungs did not need to start functioning until the baby was born. Also, there should be no significant increase in gross congenital malformations a few months after the accident, since by the time the baby in the mother's womb had reached the sixth or seventh month of development, all the major organs had already fully developed. Thus, only some six to seven months after the accident would one expect some increase in serious physical malformations, since these infants would have been exposed to radiation in the first three months of development of critical-organ formation.
data from the Harrisburg Hospital supported these expectations
State of Pennsylvania Health Department had discovered a rise in hypothyroidism among newborn babies in areas where the radioactive gases from Three Mile Island had been carried by the winds.
Source:
SECRET FALLOUT - LOW-LEVEL RADIATION FROM HIROSHIMA TO THREE-MILE ISLAND
ERNEST STERNGLASS
18
Too Little Too Late
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp18.html
Barkley said: "Even if 330 deaths did occur, this is all there is from nuclear power in its half century in the US, aside from some bizarre episodes in production facilities, such as one where a worker exposed his wife and her lover to fuel rods out of jealousy....
Here's a short extract from the document entitled 'Let the Facts Speak' (Compiled by awareness Education for the Office of Jo Vallentine Senator for The Greens (WA) JANUARY 1992).
I didn't have time tonight to go through the entire document. It is clear from the information provided that the deaths from the large amounts of radioactive waste being continually leached into the environment just from the nuclear energy industry in the US has/will result in an extraordinary number of people dying prematurely.
25. 1958 - LOS ALAMOS, U.S.A.
One death caused by radiation in the uranium enrichment plant. Plutonium had been allowed to accumulate inside a mixing vessel. When a new batch of plutonium was transferred to the vessel, all eight pounds of plutonium dissolved off the walls and came together in the centre of the vessel. The person working on it received ten times the lethal dose in less than a second. He died less than 35 hours later. (Sources: Walkatein "The Myth of nuclear Safety" The Ecologist July 1977. World Health Organisation, 1961 "Contingency Plan"
28. 1958-1959 - COLORADO, U.S.A.
Animas River near uranium mills at Darango, Colorado measured three times safe maximum dally level for radium. Crops on farms in area irrigated by river had twice radioactivity of other crops. ("Nucleus" - 25th July, 1979 p.11. SABNS/LANS Uranium Kit no 2 Aus. Autumn 1975.)
33. 1959 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.
Radioactive genes were slowly and deliberately released into the air after a serious accident in a reactor just north of the populous San Fernando Valley (Sources "From under the Rug" F.O.E. La Trobe University Vic.)
38. 1961 - IDAHO FALLS, SL1, IDAHO, U.S.A.
Reported as first MAJOR reactor accident in U.S.A. An explosion occurred, cause of which is still not known. Three men were killed instantly - their bodies were so severely irradiated that their exposed hands and heads had to be severed from their bodies and buried in a dump for radioactive waste. It took years to disassemble the wrecked plant and the burial ground will have to be guarded forever. Rescuers received high radiation doses. (Sources Goffman - Taplin, Poisoned Power, Rodale Preen, 1971; "Accidents, near Accidents and Leaks in the Nuclear Industry" Penelope Coeling for M.A.U.M.; "Les Amis de la Terre"; Jean Geue A.A.E.C.)
48. 1964
Mrs. Mary H. Waeik, Secretary of the American Committee on Radiological Dangers, compiled a list from the official statistics of mortalities in the U.S.A. for 1962 (published 1964). She established a disquietening correlation between living in the area of nuclear installations and the increase -sometimes quite large - in deaths by various causes (The percentage shows the increase as compared to the national average)
Leukemia:
Garfield, Montana 600%
Scaia, North Dakota 290%
Mohave, Arizona 270%
Miscarriages:
Norten, North Dakota 215%
Garfield, Montana 230%
Shorren, Oregon 162%
Nassac, Illinois 240%
Malformed Babies:
Shorman, Oregon 310%
Carroll, Missouri 273%
Nassac, Illinois 240%
52. 1965 - INDIAN POINT U.S.A.
According to J. Laurent, a Swiss researcher, infant mortality within 15 kms of the reactor complex rose from 1961 to 1965 while it dropped nationally (Source: Energia Nucleare, No5)
53. 1965 - U.S PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
P.H.D. evidence suggests excessive leukemia deaths amongst Utah residents. Report shelved.
From 1950 to 1964, 28 leukemia deaths in the South West counties of the State of Utah. Only 19 cases would have been expected to occur among the 20,000 residents of the area.
1959 and 1960 - 7 people with acute leukemia, 5 of them children and teenagers. (Source: "The West Australian" - 10th January, 1979).
75. 1945-1968
Ten workers died as a result of over-exposure to radiation from experimental reactors or in laboratory work connected with the development of nuclear power. (Source: D. Mignon and D.W. Crancher, Atomic Energy October 1976 p.3)
98. 1970, 5th June - DRESDEN 2, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.
A spurious signal started off an incredible series of mistakes by both technicians and equipment. The reactor was out of control for 2 hours, pressure built up inside until it released radioactive iodine 131 to 100 times the safe limit to the dry well. Kendall Maglever preliminary review of the A.E.C. reactor safety study. According to Dr. STERNGLASS of the University of Pittsburgh, 2,500 babies would die because their parents lived downwind of the plant. (Work Circle Environmental Protection; Jean Geue A.A.E.C; Thieberger p.4)
107. 1971, January - OKLAHOMA, U.S.A.
Explosion killed a compressor worker as he was adjusting compressor.
127. 1972, 8th March - INDIAN POINT, NY, U.S.A.
Pressures in the primary cooling circuit increased by 30%. Water released subsequently killed 150,000 fish in the Hudson River. Studies in the U.S. have found that there is a slight increase in radiation levels in rabbits and fish around all sites in the U.S. ("New York Times" - 16th June, 1974)
158. 1973 - NEW JErSEY U.S.A.
EDWARD GLOSSON, a New Jersey truck dock worker, accidentally spilled plutonium on himself while handling a leaking box of liquid waste in 1963. Four years later his hand, then his arm and shoulder were amputated because of a rare form of cancer from which he died in 1973, aged 39. The company responsible refused to pay him compensation before he died. (Nucleus 25/7/79; Thieberger.7).
173. 1973, 1st Jul - 1974 30th Jun, - U.S.A.
The A.E.C. found a total of 3,333 safety violations at the 1,288 nuclear facilities it inspected. 98 of these posed a threat to radiation exposure to public or workers. Punishment was imposed by the A.E.C. for only 8 of these violations. ("Record on Nuclear Safety", Saskatchewan Coalition Against Nuclear Development in Guyorgy, A., Op Cit. p.120)
176. 1974 - BIG ROCK, MICHIGAN, U.S.A.
Charlevoix County in Michigan has an infant mortality rate 448 higher than national average. Immature infant deaths are 18% higher; leukemia is 400% higher. Cancer deaths are 15% more numerous than national average. Congenital defects 230% higher. Charlevoix County is the home of Big Rock Point nuclear power plant. (See Mary Weik 1964) (Thieberger p.8)
180. 1974 - KERR McGEE NUCLEAR PLANT, NEW YORK, U.S.A.
Woman contaminated by plutonium. Karen Silkwood had gathered evidence on the unsafe working conditions at the plant and was on her way to deliver these to a newspaper reporter and a union official when she died in mysterious circumstances. ("West Australian" 22nd May, 1979; A.B.C. "Four Corners", 21st July, 1979). Subsequently Karen Silkwood's father received $1 million in settlement from the company......
etc etc...
Current estimates put the annual rate of deaths from air pollution in the US at about 70,000. Probably about half that, or at least a third is due to coal burning. Natural gas is not as bad as coal, but is also certainly responsible for thousands of dead per year. This is not counting coal mining accidents and deaths due to black lung disease, and so forth....
Well if what you say is true, Barkley, it is absolutely extraordinary to observe the lack of energy conservation measures taken over the last 40 years (at least). Not to mention the failure to fund clean energy development generally and prevent inbuilt obsolescence in products and unnecessary waste in general.
There are many people happy to forego a superfluous consumption-driven lifestyle if that is what it takes to prevent a global rollout of dangerous nuclear energy technology.
Brenda,
As a very hard nosed realist, I am a supporter of a strong push for clean coal technology.
Post a Comment