Routine and accidental radioactive releases at nuclear power plants as well as the inevitable leakage of radioactive waste will contaminate water and food chains and expose humans and animals now and for generations to come.What do you mean “inevitable leakage”? I wonder if she’s aware that in Gabon, West Africa, a natural nuclear reaction occurred 2 billion years ago in which all the radioactive waste was contained. And that's with a nuclear reaction. It's more evidence that nature and humans will be able to contain and store waste for thousands of years.
Caldicott, p. 44:
However, no dose of radiation is safe, and all radiation is cumulative.A great basic understanding of radiation can be found in Dr. Max Carbon's book, "Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim?" On page 29, you can read that:
radiation doses in the range of a few times our yearly background level are either harmless or are actually beneficial.And on page 30, five studies are mentioned that prove this statement is true, contrary to Dr. Caldicott's assertion.
Caldicott, p. 44:
We are exposed to a background radiation dose of about 100 millirems per year from the earth and sun.That’s not what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says. It says we receive about 360 millirems per year from the earth and sun.
Caldicott, p. 45:
The rules are even more lenient for nuclear workers, who are allowed doses of 5 rems per year (5,000 millirems).Five rems may be the rule; however, page 4-8 of the NRC's report on Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities (PDF), say that the average measurable dose per worker in 2004 was 150 millirems -- 3 percent of the allowable dose.
Caldicott, p. 45:
Because most nuclear workers are men, mutated genes in their sperm will be inherited by their offspring and passed on to future generations.The idea that high doses of radiation caused genetic mutations -- an idea based on experiments with fruit flies -- was popular about 70 years ago. Not anymore. The best sources of study for genetic effects were the two nuclear bombs released at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.
Carbon, p. 26:
…extensive studies of 30,000 children born to parents who were exposed to radiation in the blasts have found no evidence of genetic effects.Caldicott, p. 59:
By contrast, coal plants release some uranium and uranium daughter products in their smoke but very little radiation compared to atomic plants, and certainly no fission products.Not according to the Environmental Protection Agency. If you want to calculate the radiation dose where you live, you will find a coal-fired plant emits about .03 mrem of radiation versus nuclear’s .009 mrem.
On page 73 of Dr. Caldicott’s book, Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) was sourced for information on the health effects of Three Mile Island. Surprise, surprise. We have dealt with him and the RPHP numerous times on his claims with the “tooth fairy project.”
Scientifically-based reviews continually show these claims to be false. The claims of the “tooth fairy project” have not been supported by mainstream scientists, the majority of whom have accused RPHP of using “junk science” and manipulated data to support a pre-set agenda based on inciting fear in the public.There is much more we can discuss here in this post, but I’ll leave it at this. If readers would like some great information on radiation and its health effects, start on page 23 of Carbon’s book.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Helen Caldicott, Radiation