Re[2]: RADSAFE digest 3135

[steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)]

Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:
     
    To say that there are no health problems associated with nuke plants is not
accurate. There are higher levels of breast cancer nearer a plant than farther 
away. There are indications of higher infant mortality,e tc near nuke plants. 
There are cancer clusters.  I think the idea that there is a synergistic effect 
between continually doses of low lowel radiation and the rise of soft tissue 
cancers is an idea that needs to be considered.
     
     norm
     
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
     Norm,
     
     The claims that have been made regarding the health problems 
     associated with living near a nuclear power plant that you refer to do 
     not pass what I call the "snicker test," let alone a hard scientific 
     examination. Here's why I say that:
     
     A person living near any of the nuclear power plants near the east 
     coast receive an annual background radiation dose of between 350 and 
     400 mrems, very little of which can be attributed to the NPP. Just for 
     the sake of this discussion, let's assume that 50 mrem per year is 
     from the NPP. (It's nowhere near this, but that's not the point.) The 
     allegation is then that this 50 mrem per year causes more breast 
     cancer, higher infant mortality rates, etc.
     
     I live in western Colorado, where the average annual background 
     radiation dose is between 500 and 600 mrem per year. This is 
     significantly more than the "extra" that the east coast residents 
     receive from NPPs. Now, if the allegations you referenced are true, 
     then the breast cancer rates, infant mortality rates, etc. would be 
     *much* higher out here since we're exposed to a much higher "continual 
     dose of low level radiation."  It would also mean that the hordes of 
     Californians (sorry, couldn't resist :-) that have migrated to the 
     Denver area lately would have significantly increased rates than they 
     had where they moved from. But guess what? The rates of all types of 
     cancer are lower here than most of the U.S., as is the infant 
     mortality rate.
     
     If a few mrem per year from the Salem NPP causes higher cancer rates 
     and increased infant mortality rates, then why doesn't a couple of 
     hundred more mrem per year cause the exact same effect out here? I'd 
     love to see some explanation of this, but have never heard this 
     addressed by any anti-nuke organization. Any ideas?
     
     Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
     Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
     MACTEC-ERS, LLC
     steve.rima@doegjpo.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html