A Pilgrims Progress Away from Nuclear Misinformation

A bunch of Massachusetts papers are buzzing with this news:

Residents who live in Plymouth or other towns near the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station run an increased risk of developing cancer, according to an epidemiologist called as an expert witness for the defense Wednesday during the trespassing trial of 12 Cape activists in Plymouth District Court.
Richard Clapp, a retired professor from the Boston University School of Public Health, said the continued operation of the Plymouth plant was "a risk and an unacceptable risk in my view."

Dr. Clapp is certainly a respectable figure, but he does not like nuclear energy even a little. Interestingly, in an editorial he wrote against including nuclear in a climate change bill back in 2008, he included a laundry list of objections – cost, risk, threats, etc – with only a bit devoted to health issues as he saw them.

Health: The nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers and communities to radiation from mining, milling, fuel fabrication, transportation, reactor operation, all the way to decommissioning and disposal. The biggest population-level exposure is actually to the uranium miners and millers and surrounding communities. Surely, these health implications need to be considered. Do we want to saddle future generations with the burden of solving these problems?

Presumably, the health risk is cancer, which is what he is testifying about now, and I have no problem accepting that many of the reasons he’s adopted to counter nuclear energy roots in his work as a epidemiologist. Radiation exposure is a charge to which nuclear energy is exceptionally vulnerable, but has never been responsive to. Facilities don’t add to the radiation that people pick up just moving through their days. Study after study shows that. (NEI has a nice collection of papers on various studies and of course you can read the original studies when they’re online.)

A study done by the Massachusetts Department of Health that showed elevated cancer incidents around the Pilgrim facility excited anti-nuclear advocates when it was released in 1990. But the department found the report troubling in a number of ways and asked a group of experts to critique it. Among the problems:

The leukemia mortality rates for this area [around Pilgrim] have remained close to the state average throughout the period. This finding contradicts the substantial increase in leukemia risk found by SMSII [the original study].

And:

The strength of the association between leukemia and proximity to the Pilgrim power plant was unexpected based on previous studies of the leukemogenic effects of low dose radiation. Furthermore, the specific problems mentioned above make it difficult to conclude that the observed association is real and related to nuclear power plant emissions.

The report on the report said the first report did not include all the towns around Pilgrim or any children in the sample and did not examine areas around other nuclear facilities to provide some comparable bases. There were some other comments related to the design of the study that gets into the specifics of the field - study-speak, so to speak - but that’s the gist of it.

Regardless of this, some people have dined out on the original study – perhaps including those 12 folk now in trouble for trespassing onto Pilgrim – definitely including Dr. Clapp – for years.

We have nothing whatever against studies such as those conducted by the Department of Health. Nuclear energy has not been harmed by them at all, since they turn up nothing untoward and they do have the benefit of reassuring anyone in the public that needs it. But a fair number of anti-nuclear advocates are not going to thrown off the scent – more’s the pity. Cancer carries a potent charge that shouldn’t be exploited.

---

I’m not in the least bit competent to comment on the court case, though I did find this line up of witnesses interesting:

Today, Gordon Thompson, an expert on energy, environment and security, is scheduled to testify about safety issues. And on Friday, Stephen Nathanson, a professor at Northeastern University, will focus on social change. The defense will wrap up with state Sen. Daniel Wolf, D-Harwich, a longtime Pilgrim opponent.

Being against something and trespassing onto that something sound like different issues to me, but these witnesses should at least make for a lively trial.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog