Skip to main content

Correcting the Record on Three Mile Island

By Eric McErlain
An August 19, 2006 story in the Boston Herald concerning the distribution of KI tablets around U.S. nuclear power plants contained the following paragraph that caught my attention:
KI pills help absorb radiation and can thwart thyroid cancer if people take them soon after exposure. Studies have shown the pills could have severely reduced cancer caused by meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Here's Diane Screnci of the NRC in a letter to the editor that appeared in today's edition of the newspaper:
I'’d like to correct a statement ("“Markey rips Bush over delay in radiation pill handout," Aug. 19). The story said, "“Studies have shown the pills could have severely reduced cancer caused by meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl."”

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the TMI accident have been conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, Pennsylvania and others. Those comprehensive investigations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment. Unlike Chernobyl, there was such a small amount of iodine released at TMI that it couldn'’t be found, only calculated. Without iodine, there is no threat to the thyroid and no need for KI.
For more on the TMI accident and a list of the health studies conducted in its aftermath, click here. NEI has also published a number of fact sheets that look at the issue of KI distribution in detail:

Potassium Iodide Use Must Be Science-Based

Use of Potassium Iodide Secondary Measure in the Event of a Radioactive Release

Emergency Preparedness Near Nuclear Power Plants

As we saw last week, junk science is a real problem for the nuclear industry. While I applaud the Boston Herald for publishing the letter from NRC, the original story should have had links embedded in it that pointed to the actual source of the "studies" that the reporter was referring to.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more