Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Nuclear Reactors (was: Global Temperatures)




In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:08:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
edmiston@bluffton.edu writes:

With respect to cancer deaths because of Three-Mile Island, Bob Zannelli
asked, "Have similar studies been done for populations around coal
plants which emit lots of cancer causing radiation due to the presence
of radioactive isotopes in coal not to mention the cancer causing
chemicals?"

I can speak to that type of question in general. I have been on an
environmental committee appointed by my county's health department for
the past 20+ years. The health department has done a lot of
epidemiology studies in my area because of a refinery and several
chemical plants in our area. The Ohio-EPA has also done extensive air
monitoring in the area. My committee has been responsible to help
disseminate the results of these studies to the public, and to help the
EPA, health department, and public understand these results.

There was suspicion that we had elevated cancer rates in general, and
there seemed to be "cluster cases" of various types of cancers. After
years of studying cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases, and years of
monitoring the air and water quality, it has become clear we don't have
poor air quality, we don't have specific air toxics, we don't have poor
water quality, and in general we do not have high cancer or cluster
cancers. These have all been pretty much figments of the public's
imagination.

We have had some higher than average lung cancer rates, but this area,
which has been traditionally a blue-collar work force, has a high
incidence of cigarette use that easily explains the lung cancer rates.
We also have diet and lifestyle-related cardiopulmonary disease that is
generally cause by poor diet, lack of exercise, and resulting obesity,
high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. In other words, we can't
really connect any disease rates or mortality rates to the refinery and
chemical plants.

Because income, education, and the resulting lifestyle are so important
for health, it is very difficult to do accurate studies of mortality and
disease in areas where we have reactors, or coal-fired plants, or other
types of industry. Disease connections were more easily established
when industrial sites could get away with sloppy environmental controls.
Today, unless a power plant or industry is violating the Clean Air Act
or the Clean Water Act, the disease rates cause by industry are down to
(or close to) the rates from general lifestyle habits. This makes it
difficult to place blame.

Personally I would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal-fired
plant. If both are operated properly I believe the health risk from
nuclear is smaller. But I also believe both risks are low enough when
modern plants operate properly that lifestyle is the predominate cause
of early mortality.

Of course, many coal-fired plants are not modern... And that's another
issue.


Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
_edmiston@bluffton.edu_ (mailto:edmiston@bluffton.edu)



))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Of course the real issue with coal that has global consequences is Carbon
emission. The idea that life style choices submerges the health effects of
power production , even near coal plants , seems a pretty reasonable conclusion,
assuming the coal plant is meeting emission standards. But this doesn't get
to the problem of carbon emission.

Bob Zannelli
**************New Deals on Dell Netbooks – Now starting at $299 (A
HREF=http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220635155x1201407495/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fa
d.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213771973%3B35379628%3Bw)