[ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science panel told "

[Stewart Farber]

The pressure from some anti-nuclear groups mentioned below [like the anti-nuclear "Institute for Energy and Environmental Research" to study only a few nuclear plants more intensively appears to be a simplistic tactic to try and get some false positives.  If all 100 US nuclear plants are studied, and the "true" impact on cancer rates around the entire population of nuclear plants was zero, you would expect a few plants to have statistical false positives of some excess cancers due to random statistics of the variation around zero impact. 

If all plants were studied, and if the cancer risk impact was indeed zero,  there would be a greater probability of finding that the mean impact based on all studies was indeed zero. Right?

It is unlikely that given the trivial radiation exposures around each and every operating nuclear plant in this country, if any study of cancer impacts would have the statistical sensitivity to ferret out any impact, given the much larger variation in background at one plant to another which swamps any increase in radiation dose to the study population near each plant. 

Many years ago, some anti-nuclear academic interests, together with some staff at the MA Dept. of Public Health,  had pushed through a simple analysis of cancer statistics near Pilgrim Nuclear Station. They looked at small numbers of cancers in small counties "close" to the plant [assuming, incorrectly,  that these close in areas would have "higher" radiation exposure from the plant operation].  What their analysis overlooked is that the closest areas to the plant had the most sandy soil, and the total terrestrial gamma exposure was substantially less "close" to the plant, vs. more distant counties. Also, since the sandy soil closer to the plant had less U-238 than soil more distant from the plant, radon in homes would be expected to be lower near the plant than farther away.

The point is that "Total" radiation exposure "close" to the plant, adding together background [cosmic, terrestrial gamma, radon -but ignoring medical] and the slight dose from plant releases, was less that the Total radiation exposure distant from the plant. So the study claim of having reviewed cancer stats and found higher cancer rates "close" to the plant was actually making a claim of higher cancer rates where total radiation exposures was the lowest. The larger radiation exposure from medical uses of radiation and its variability in arriving at total radiation exposure for any population near a nuclear plant isn't even considered.

I asked one of the authors of the MA Dept. of PH study if given their crude study finding of lower total radiation exposure and higher cancer rates to the close-in residents, and especially given substantial and growing evidence that ionizing  radiation might be hormetic at low levels, if Pilgrim should do the local residents a favor by bypassing [not using] their Advanced Offgas System and releasing more short-lived fission gases.  Not using the Pilgrim AOS would result in more radiation dose to those residents living close in  [who "unfortunately" were not getting the somewhat larger actual total radiation dose of the residents living at a distance from the nuclear plant  from terrestrial background, indoor radon, and plant releases]. Accordingly, I made a swift modest proposal that delivering more radiation to the close-in residents might be doing them a favor and improve their health.

The above considerations show how  impossible it would be to get any meaningful understanding from looking at cancer stats around nuclear facilities and the impact of plant releases, when the plant release radiation dose is dwarfed by the variations of all components of background, and the much, much  larger and variable exposure of people to medical radiation exposure.

It is clear that anti-nuclear "Institutes" [gosh, doesn't adding "Institute" to the name of some anti-nuclear group like the "Institute for Energy and Environmental Research", a private body funded by anti-nuclear interests, give it a lot more panache & credibility? ] and various anti-nuclear interests are pushing more intensive study around existing nuclear plants now as another delaying tactic before our society proceeds with any new nuclear power projects. This is merely a new wrinkle on the claim that it is impossible to dispose of nuclear waste, and nothing should proceed until "more study" is performed, and then any action approved by popular vote.

As Lili Tomlin said:  "No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up".



Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604


[203] 441-8433 [o]
website: http://www.farber-medical.com

====================



----- Original Message ----
> From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj at aecl.ca>
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Sent: Thu, April 29, 2010 10:55:13 AM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science panel told "
> 
> UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ

NUCLEONICS WEEK APRIL 29, 2010

Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science panel told


> Thestudy would update a 1990 report that found there was no
link between > cancer and plant locations; that study has been
criticized by lawmakers,  scientists and anti-nuclear groups as
inadequate. Arjun Makhijani,  president of the anti-nuclear Institute
for Energy and Environmental Research, said the study must
take a closer look at a small cross-section of nuclear power
plants to be able to identify links between living near 
> the plants and cancer.
Many contributing factors, such as pesticide exposure
and industrial chemical releases, could affect results, he 
> said.
"Unless you study specific plants, you're not going to be
able to come up with a defensible conclusion," Makhijani said. ..................