EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Biggest Criminal Enterprise in History
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
Popular content
Today's Top News
French Scientists: Childhood Leukemia Spikes Near Nuclear Reactors
French researchers have confirmed that childhood leukemia rates are shockingly elevated among children living near nuclear power reactors.
The “International Journal of Cancer” has published in January a scientific study establishing a clear correlation between the frequency of acute childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear power stations. The paper is titled, “Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants – the Geocap study, 2002-2007.”
This devastating report promises to do for France what a set of 2008 reports did for Germany — which recently legislated a total phase-out of all its power reactors by 2022 (sooner if the Greens get their way).
The French epidemiology — conducted by a team from the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, or INSERM, the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, or IRSN, and the National Register of hematological diseases of children in Villejuif, outside Paris — demonstrates during the period from 2002-2007 in France the doubling of childhood leukemia incidence: the increase is up to 2.2 among children under age five.
The researchers note that they found no mechanistic proof of cause and effect, but could identify no other environmental factor that could produce the excess cancers.
Without getting overly technical, the case-control study included the 2,753 cases of acute leukemia diagnosed in mainland France over 2002-2007, and 30,000 contemporaneous population “controls.” The children’s last addresses were geo-coded and located around France’s 19 nuclear power stations, which operate 54 separate reactors. The study used distance to the reactors and a dose-based geographic zoning, based on the estimated dose to bone marrow related to the reactors’ gaseous discharges.
All operating reactors routinely spew radioactive gases like xenon, krypton and the radioactive form of hydrogen known as tritium. These gases are allowed to be released under licenses issued by federal government agencies. Allowable limits on these radioactive poisons were suggested to governments and regulatory agencies by the giant utilities that own the reactors and by reactor operators themselves. This is because their reactors can’t even function without regularly releasing radioactive liquids and gases, releases required to control pressure, temperature and vibrations inside the gigantic systems. (See: “Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants in the United States: What Are the Dangers?” (pdf) from BeyondNuclear.org, 2009)
In Germany, results of the 2008 KiKK studies — a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants — were published in both the International Journal of Cancer (Vol. 122) and the European Journal of Cancer (Vol. 44). These 25-year-long studies found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with reactor installations than all previous reports.
The main findings were a 60 percent increase in solid cancers and a 117 percent increase in leukemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. These shocking studies — along with persistent radioactive contamination of Germany from the Chernobyl catastrophe — are largely responsible for depth and breadth of anti-nuclear public opinion all across Germany.
Similar leukemia spikes have been found around U.S. reactors (European Journal of Cancer Care, Vol. 16, 2007). Researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina analyzed 17 research papers covering 136 reactor sites in the UK, Canada, France, the U.S., Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukemia in children under age 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14 to 21 percent, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5 to 24 percent, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities.
When the U.S. public owns up to the dangers of nuclear power, we too can get around to its replacement and phase-out.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show AllI would be interested in knowing whether the kids that lived near the nuclear plants belonged to a population more likely to get childhood leukemia and other cancers. Suppose they tended to come from poor families. The poor are more likely to be subjected to environmental assaults that clearly cause cancer: smoking, breathing polluted air, ingesting unhealthy substances. Is it the influence of the nukes or the influence of the effects of poverty that cause more cancers? Have not read this study and would like to find out.
Here is the summary of the report:
"Int J Cancer. 2012 Jan 5. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27425. [Epub ahead of print]
Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants - the Geocap study, 2002-2007.
Sermage-Faure C, Laurier D, Goujon-Bellec S, Chartier M, Guyot-Goubin A, Rudant J, Hémon D, Clavel J.
Source
Inserm, CESP Center for research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Environmental epidemiology of cancer Team, F-94807, Villejuif, France; Univ Paris-Sud, UMRS 1018, F-94807, Villejuif, France; Institute of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, IRSN/DRPH/SER, F-92262, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
Abstract
To study the risk of childhood acute leukemia (AL) around French nuclear power plants (NPPs). The nationwide Geocap case-control study included the 2,753 cases diagnosed in mainland France over 2002-2007 and 30,000 contemporaneous population controls. The last addresses were geocoded and located around the 19 NPPs. The study used distance to NPPs and a dose-based geographic zoning (DBGZ), based on the estimated dose to bone marrow related to NPP gaseous discharges. An odds ratio (OR) of 1.9 [1.0-3.3], based on 14 cases, was evidenced for children living within 5 km of NPPs, compared to those living 20 km or further away, and a very similar association was observed in the concomitant incidence study (standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 1.9 [1.0-3.2]). These results were similar for all the 5-year age groups. They persisted after stratification for several contextual characteristics of the municipalities of residence. Conversely, using the DBGZ resulted in OR and SIR close to one in all of the dose categories. There was no increase in AL incidence over 1990-2001 and over the entire 1990-2007 period. The results suggest a possible excess risk of AL in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002-2007. The absence of any association with the DBGZ may indicate that the association is not explained by NPP gaseous discharges. Overall, the findings call for investigation for potential risk factors related to the vicinity of NPP, and collaborative analysis of multisite studies conducted in various countries.
Copyright © 2012 UICC."
It appears to the authors that there is a correlation, but no conclusive proof that gaseous releases are the cause. No measurements of actual radiation exposure were included, simply proximity. They call for further investigation "for potential risk factors".
So this is interesting but not a basis for concluding that there is a cause/effect relationship as the early "comments" below would have one believe. Of course if you come at it believing that existing reactors should be shut down, then for you it is proven that these plants are the cause.
The lack of conclusive proof that the gases caused the correlation may be caused by an under-reporting of releases of gas.
The study was looking for whether there was more risk if someone is located in a region of higher exposure to the gases (and a lower risk at lower doses), and that type of observation is not dependent upon the exact amount of gas released at a specific nuclear power plant. No correlation was found between the risk and the calculated exposure. The model for relating the dose to the distance away may be imperfect, but the spatial dose distributions do not depend upon knowing accurately the actual amount of gaseous releases at the plant. There appears to be no concern by the authors for such under-reporting and that is understandable. It would be better to have had actual radiation dose measurements in great detail around each plant but those were apparently not available. So the study shows there is a higher risk closer to the plant but without any clear cause for that. There may be other risk factors that are related to distance besides radiation.
The author of the opinion item however implies that the study has sought out all the possible reasons for the proximity effect and had concluded that "...they found no mechanistic proof of cause and effect, but could identify no other environmental factor that could produce the excess cancers." He then goes on to blame radioactive gases. I read the article and found that the authors did not seek to identify other reasons for the correlation of risk with distance but rather suggested that be done.. Note that LaForge is on the staff of an organization called Nukewatch, which is anti-nuclear power, so the slant he has imposed on this item is understandable.
"The study used distance to NPPs and a dose-based geographic zoning (DBGZ), based on the estimated dose to bone marrow related to NPP gaseous discharges."
R F'n Inston: How do you think they estimated the dose without factoring in the reported releases?
"The approach used to derive DBGZ is already quite elaborated (consideration of a broad spectrum of 12 radionuclides, use of real average discharge data and local climate data, calculation of the dose to the pertinent organ, etc.)."
"The method used to estimate the dose of radiation delivered to bone marrow by the NPPs was based on the average annual gaseous discharge levels, discharge composition and local meteorological parameters especially prevailing winds which influence the dispersion of radionuclides."
The study also has something you'll like: "Overall, the estimated doses due to NPPs were very low compared to the doses due to natural radiation sources. Such doses are not expected to result in an observable excess risk on the basis of the available evidence."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.27425/pdf
To you that's support for some factor other than gas releases causing the proximity cancers, to me that indicates that under-reporting may well be occurring.
The authors of the study analyzed for all the plants as a group and also as individual plants to look for dose/risk correlations and found no such correlations with dose, either way. The bottom line, regardless of the absolute accuracy of the releases, is that there was no correlation between exposure levels (based upon distance from the plant) and risk. Of course it doesn't prove that there is no risk from exposure, rather that if there is one that the levels of exposure around these plants are not high enough to show a correlation thereto. There is a correlation of risk with physical proximity but exactly what is the causitive variable with distance is yet to be identified.
It would also be of interest to know whether health risks exist close to fossil-fueled plants before deciding to close down nuclear plants and rely more upon those...as would happen if Japan followed Germany's recent decision for their future energy mix.
R F'n Inston sed: "The study was looking for whether there was more risk if someone is located in a region of higher exposure to the gases (and a lower risk at lower doses), and that type of observation is not dependent upon the exact amount of gas released at a specific nuclear power plant....the spatial dose distributions do not depend upon knowing accurately the actual amount of gaseous releases at the plant."
So, do you now admit, in light of the extracts I posted from the report, that the doses were based on data about the releases?
Of course, but even if there were overall under- or even over-reporting of the gas releases, the issue is whether there was a distance based dose-dependent risk of leukemia and there wasn't. So I agree the dose levels were based upon reported releases, but nonetheless there were no differences in risk due to being exposed to different levels of dose at a given reactor or at the reactors taken together as a group. The leukemia risk is higher near the reactor but it wasn't explained by the radiation dose being higher. It must be another factor(s) or the doses themselves were too low to produce a detectable change in risk no matter where the distance from the plant. That is how I read the results. It states about the radiation dose analysis (DBGZ) in the abstract:
" Conversely, using the DBGZ resulted in OR and SIR close to one in all of the dose categories. There was no increase in AL incidence over 1990-2001 and over the entire 1990-2007 period. The results suggest a possible excess risk of AL in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002-2007. The absence of any association with the DBGZ may indicate that the association is not explained by NPP gaseous discharges. Overall, the findings call for investigation for potential risk factors related to the vicinity of NPP, and collaborative analysis of multisite studies conducted in various countries."
John LaForge wrote this opinion that purports to show radioactivity from the nuclear plants is the cause of a possible increase in risk of leukemia between 2002 and 2007 in close proximity. And that is exactly what the researchers said is NOT proven by their analysis.
What were you a lackey for one of the cases where Big Tobacco used the same types of "lack of conclusive evidence" to tell smokers and would-be smokers that nicotine was fine and dandy?
There's something MORALLY wrong with an individual who pushes the meme that until a dangerous thing is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, lots of lives (and the health of thousands) ought to be treated like a lottery.
Instead of the public functioning as unwilling Guinea Pigs, let those who do harm prove the safety of their products first and foremost.
I hope Wayne shows up to slaughter you. Then again, to post the type of dis-information you do (given what's at stake), I'd say your SOUL is already dead.
Did you read the actual summary of the French article (in English)? I have said nothing other than what the authors reported: that there is no indication (correlation) that the radiation released from the nuclear plants is what is associated with the leukemia risk being higher near the plants. It is there for you to read in black and white. I am not claiming that the releases are harmless. For someone who claims to be concerned MORALLY, to then wish for me to experience "slaughter" is a bit inconsistent. Maybe you are blinded by your anger that I took the trouble to actually read the article and to discover that John LaForge had twisted the conclusions of the research to fit his anti-nuclear agenda.
Most who visit this site know you for an industry apologist. I certainly DID read the article, and note that it is YOU who is twisting its data and what that more than suggests. It is almost impossible to establish a perfect burden of proof, and you know that. It is that centimeter of doubt that you are using as a wedge to push YOUR agenda. That of extending to nuke plants & nuke power the benefit of the doubt, this over concer for children's health IS immoral and also in keeping with your Modus Operandi.
"Industry apologist"? How about open-minded scientist.
Here are the key conclusions from the abstract of the article:
"There was no increase in AL incidence over 1990-2001 and over the entire 1990-2007 period. The results suggest a possible excess risk of AL in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002-2007. The absence of any association with the DBGZ may indicate that the association is NOT (emphasis added) explained by NPP gaseous discharges. Overall, the findings call for investigation for potential risk factors related to the vicinity of NPP,"
John LaForge wrote this opinion that purports to show radioactivity from the nuclear plants is the cause of a possible increase in risk of leukemia between 2002 and 2007 in close proximity. And that is exactly what the researchers said is NOT proven by their analysis. So once again we have an anti-nuclear activist claiming that nuclear power plants operating in routine fashion are causing a "shocking ... and
devastating... spike" in leukemia due to the routine low-level releases of radioacitive gases. That is the modus operandi I am questioning as well as that of Common Dreams for posting it without apparently even checking the research abstract themselves. I would prefer the existing nuclear plants to operate rather than burning more fossil fuels in their place, provided they do so in a manner which does not cause clear harm to the public.
No one experienced acute radiation injury or death from Fukushima. Whether there will be found increased cancers in the Japanese residents nearby is to be determined. Evacuation was appropriate so as to minimize doses until the extent of the contamination was known. Now local elected officials (not TEPCO) have sponsored plans for the low-contamination areas in the zone to be re-inhabited. Lessons have been learned to avoid similar accidents in the future.
Siouxrose wrote (to RFinston):
'Most who visit this site know you for an industry apologist. I certainly DID read the article, and note that it is YOU who is twisting its data and what that more than suggests. It is almost impossible to establish a perfect burden of proof, and you know that. It is that centimeter of doubt that you are using as a wedge to push YOUR agenda. That of extending to nuke plants & nuke power the benefit of the doubt, this over concer for children's health IS immoral and also in keeping with your Modus Operandi.'
Please speak only for yourself. After reading the report's abstract and RFinston's comments on it, I cannot find any "twisting" of data. In science, nothing is completely proven. Science is NOT a search for truth. If we really want to protect children's health, we will investigate other possible causes for the increased AL rates, instead of barking up the radiation tree.
Some years ago, a well-publicized study found a correlation between childhood cancer and proximity to electric power sub-stations in the US. The authors attributed the increased incidence to the extremely-low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields from the transformers. In spite of the fact that no field measurements were made, and that there was no medical evidence to support the conclusion, the public
reacted intensely. Electric power companies were pressured to install their sub-stations in child-free areas.
The report was pretty much discredited, as it was pointed out that tar used on the poles near the substations was a known carcinogen, as was the ozone produced near electric substations. Sometimes, science doesn't give us the answer that we desire.
John
Siouxrose wrote (presumably to RFinston):
'What were you a lackey for one of the cases where Big Tobacco used the same types of "lack of conclusive evidence" to tell smokers and would-be smokers that nicotine was fine and dandy?'
Please understand that the French study in question didn't come up with ANY evidence at all that radioisotope releases from the power plants were the cause of AL in children. The correlation with proximity to the reactors bears further study, but
with ionizing radiation as a cause effectively ruled out.
'...Then again, to post the type of dis-information you do (given what's at stake), I'd say your SOUL is already dead.'
I'm sure that you will agree that the above is abjectively shameful. I find that RFinston's posts are quite informative. Is there a particular comment of his with which you disagree?
John
Your question is a good one, because in the U.S, we tend to locate industrial operations in poor communities. But with regard to smoking, my understanding is that in Europe, lots of people smoke, regardless of their economic status, so that would not be a contributing factor.
Economic factors are controlled for:
The case-control study included all the 2,753 French childhood leukemia cases aged up to 15
years at the end of the year of diagnosis, diagnosed between 2002 and 2007, and residing in
metropolitan France. The cases were obtained from the French National Registry of
Childhood Hematopoietic Malignancies (NRCH)31.
A set of 30,000 control addresses, 5,000 each year for the period 2002-2007, representative of
the French pediatric population for those years, was randomly sampled from the pediatric
population of mainland France, by the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies
(INSEE) using the income and council tax databases. The sample was stratified on the
Département administrative unit. The control sample was closely representative of its source
population in terms of age and number of children in the household, and in terms of
contextual socioeconomic and demographic variables: size of the urban unit, median income,
proportion of blue-collar workers, proportion of subjects who successfully completed high
school, and proportion of homeowners in the municipality of residence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.27425/pdf
¿curiouser and curiouser?
several minmutes ago i clicked to read this article, but the rabbit gave me a "connection problem" notice, so i chose another read. aah, at last upon returning i found my way! i wished to share the link to this study on another forum where we debate the safety of nuclear energy. after opening that site, i attempted to open thread, nuclear energy, but alas an alack all i see is the grinning cheshire cat. "data base error!" he says before he fades away.
curiouser and curiouser.......
Well, as long as the children of the rich don't get sick, then who the fuck cares? Put the poor next to a coal plant, a refinery, toxic waste dump, etc. with the bonus that you can never prove why they are all sick and dying. Fucking A, eh?
OK let me put on my right wing hat, (a combination of a dunce cap and a jesters hat), and explain this nuclear issue to you all.
Do you people really want to have the nanny state telling you where to live? If people want to live near a nuke plant they should have that right. The state should not be involved protecting kids, that's the parents responsibility, just like it is with what kids eat. If a parent wants their kids irradiated while eating their daily Wendy's triple burger with cheese then it's their right. If the kids are French we need to put some meat on those surrender monkeys anyway, and if the kids are morbidly obese Americans then that is just American exceptionalism in action.
Do we really want big government telling us what kind of energy to use? Do you want manly energy like nuclear, or coal, or do you want your big flat screen TV powered by some socialist windmill like the Dutch use to with their dikes. IMHO anything that supports homosexuality should not be used when one watches Fox news.
Besides as Ann Coulter points out in her column, radiation is actually good for you. (And if you think Im kidding about that Google it!) She says It reduces cancer, so we must assume that these people are either imagining their cancers, or this is just more junk science, similar to the manmade global warming crap. These doctors and scientists are just chasing goberment dollars to fund their pseudo junk science.
This class war on the nuclear industry has to stop. Children waging war on corporations is cowardly and outrageous, and must stop now! Corporations are people, and have feelings very similar to the feelings that Mitt Romney has. If you ever want to see what it is like to look a corporation in the eye, go to a Romney rally and look into Mitt's.
OK, I now take off my right wing hat and slowly, carefully back away from it...
And get into that detox shower quickly!
NC-Tom (standing in for John lymphoma and R F'n Inston) sez:
"Besides as Ann Coulter points out in her column, radiation is actually good for you. (And if you think Im kidding about that Google it!) She says It reduces cancer, so we must assume that these people are either imagining their cancers, or this is just more junk science, similar to the manmade global warming crap."
Fool!!! Imagine how much worse their cancers would be without the benefit of the plants radiation treatments! Do you know how expensive those treatments would be if the Nuclear Industry weren't providing them - free of charge!? Not to mention the convenience of in-home treatments, saving worried parents the time and expense of traveling to get the treatments.
But do you people appreciate it? No, you want to blame the plants. You want them to stop providing the treatments. And why are these clusters of cancers located near nuclear plants? Hello!!! Free, at home radiation treatments for cancer. Kids with cancer. Duh.
"Honey, we've got to do what's best for little Suzette. Only the free radiation treatments near a nuclear plant can save her now. I only hope to God we can find a house close enough."
You people make me sick!
I know yours was in jest, but in Japan, the courts have ruled that TEPCO does not own the radioactive isotopes discharged from Fukushima, and if you have any on your property--or your produce--its yours and your responsibility to clean it up or face heavy penalties if it harms anyone. How's that for REAL right wing thinking.
LOL! In my wildest tinfoil rightwing faux fantasies, I would have never dreamt that one up on my own. They have literally transcended fiction.
Oops, duplicate rant...
What a revelation!
This will require some more years of study cuz' who knows whether the correlation between the disease and the nukes really holds, right? Some more commissions, committees, studies, reports, analyses, discussions, conferences, debates, television shows, articles in scholarly journals with graphs and statistics, documentaries, radio programs, internet discussions... did I forget something?
Cancers are only the tip of the iceberg.
Literally hundreds of ailments are statistically correlated with radio-nuclide and radiation contamination (see Helen Caldicott, Chris Busby, Yaklobov, etc...)
But we are in the same boat, aren't we? One where the facts just get in the way.
Manysummits
======
Where's the pro-nuke shills? They're late, and I need an explanation as to why the science isn't science when it conflicts with the profits to be made from the industry.
But none of these children will die of the radiation! They will die because of the Leukemia!!
That proves radiation is safe...Right Winston?
This great article should be emailed to every conservative politician, newspaper, and conservative on your address book. They can't wipe their ass with it if its emailed.
"The conduct of secret nuclear wars since 1991, through the use of depleted uranium weaponry by the United States and Great Britain with their allies, has taken place in the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan2 and Lebanon.3 It has been carried out for the express purpose of destroying the public health and mutilating the genetic future of vast populations in oil rich and/or pipeline regions.
Carpet and grid bombing with depleted uranium weaponry in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan has guaranteed permanent radioactive terrain contamination. The recent discovery that U.S. depleted uranium bombs dropped by Israel on Lebanon in 2006 contained enriched uranium4,5 suggests covert testing of fourth generation nuclear weapons."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5949
can you say gulf war syndrome
"Dear Gulf War Illness Patient:
We at the Institute for Molecular Medicine have been working with physicians (and now veterinarians) who have patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS), Gulf War Illness (GWI) or Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) to determine a connection between the signs and symptoms suffered by these patients and chronic infections caused by Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, or other chronic infectious pathogens. For example, Mycoplasmas are microorganisms similar to bacteria but without a rigid cell wall. Some species of Mycoplasma or Chlamydia do not cause human disease, but more recently several species have been shown to cause or are a cofactor in disease, and when such microorganisms are found in the blood, they should be treated just like any other bacterial blood infection. The species of Mycoplasma that we have found in about 50% of CFS, 60% of FMS, 45% of GWI and 40% of RA patients cuase system-wide or systemic infections that invade virtually every tissue in the body and can compromise the immune system, permitting opportunistic infections by viruses, bacteria, fungi and yeast. Often these patients have multiple chronic infections and their signs and symptoms can be quite complex, and each patient tends to have their own unique set of problems.
Systemic chronic microorganism infections can cause chronic fatigue, reoccuring fevers, night sweats, joint and muscle pains, stomach upsets and cramps, diarrhea, breathing problems, sleep disturbances, sinus congestion/pain, headaches, skin rashes, kidney pain, dizziness, nausea, short term memory loss, vision problems, such as light sensitivity, blurred vision and floaters, hair loss, urination problems, eye pain, heart and thyroid problems and in extreme cases autoimmume-like disorders, such as those that lead to muscle degeneration and paralysis. The latter symptoms are probably due to the fact that the microorganism is released from infected cells carrying parts of host cell membrane, and individuals mayrespond to the microorganism as well as normal host antigens carried on the microorganism, resulting in symptoms similar to but not exactly those of MS, ALS, Lupus and other autoimmune disorders. Other symptoms include abnormal allergic responses, peculiar neurological symtoms, heart abnormalties, respiratory ailments, gastric discomforts ranging from ulcers to irratible bowel syndrome, and in extreme instances encephalitis and/or meningitis. Mycoplasma or Chlamydia infections usually start as respiratory infections that cause a flu-like illness that progresses to a systemic condition. We are having success in recommending treatment of CFS, FMS, GWI and RA patients with antibiotics, such as doxycycline, ciprofloxacin, azithromycin and Biaxin. The treatment works on most indivduals, but it can take some time to recover from this type of infection (usually up to and even over one year) and individuals undergoing therapy always feel worse when they start the therapy due to 'die-off' of the microorganism or Herxheimer reactions (transient discomfort and intermittent fever and other signs that occur within a few hours of starting antibiotics but diminish in a few days to 3 weeks during therapy). We also noted that penicillin can exacerbate the symptoms. We are now developing additional tests for other chronic infections that might also be involved in these illnesses."
http://gulfwarvets.com/letter2.htm
the oligarchs are killing them arabs and our soldiers with irradiation
the israelis are irradiating the gaza strip and southern lebanon with their du weapons but in doing so they are also irradiating themselves
how insane is that
the whole thing is crazy
and these effects were well and widely known by this industry in the 1890's when they first started to mine unrainium
"Dr. Helen Caldicott (Co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility):
"Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time."
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/04/13/dr-helen-caldicott-how-nuclear-apologists-mislead-the-world-over-radiation/
Considering the lengths the French government have gone to in the past to 'defend' their all-in position on nukes, I am quite surprised the report the author of the piece referred to was ever allowed to see the light of day. The reality is probably much worse.
Leukemia near Nuclear Power plants? Where have I heard about that before?
Oh, in the USA - the Tooth Fairy Project
And Chernobyl.
It's caused by STRONTIUM-90 because this radioactive isotope is so similar to Calcium that the body deposits it into the bones and teeth.
http://www.radiation.org/projects/tooth_fairy.html
http://prop1.org/ice/toothfairy.htm
This is why punk rock is good for you! I learned this years ago thanks to Against All Authority's song "The Source of Strontium 90"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yq5XoCFx0M
Enjoy!
ALL Nuclear Power Plants leak. ALL. It is humanly impossible to provide 100 percent containment to thousands of access panels, hatches, doors, reactor caps, graphite seals, refueling operations, spent fuel transfer mistakes, etc, etc, etc. In any given year, thousands of human operations go on and a number of them have "incidents", mistakes or unexpected events that fit squarely into the FUBAR category. Few are reported, imho. Aviation is another industry that demands high attention to safety and yet, the agency involved in assuring this, the FAA, was itself caught using bogus parts in it's fleet of monitoring aircraft by the GAO in the 90's.
Airlines are allowed to skip inspections and just "self-report" violations just like the NRC relies on. Both the FAA and the NRC that licenses and inspects nuke plants has an impossible mandate of both enforcing and promoting the industry. What always results is a profit-driven emphasis on the "promoting" part and a cozy "revolving door" between industry and business. It never shocked us that the same FAA Administrator, who saw it our way, and allowed us to carry unlimited amounts of TI REM radioactive substances over your rooftop (the old limit was 50 TI ) was the very same man who a few years later became our Vice President!
What a coincidence, huh!
Try to keep in mind the main theme of this posting: ALL Nuclear Power Plants leak. That's because when a Low pressure weather system moves into the area it's physically impossible for the air inside the pressure vessel: the containment structure not to equalize itself with the low pressure outside at some point. This means to me, that equalization of the RPV would happen with the reactor's antechamber, and subsequently with the secondary containment structure and then with the outside world.
This could be rationalized as an acceptable practice with a vent filtering strategy, and might indeed function for a while as intended while the plant was new, the seals still worked, and the operators never made mistakes and closed and opened the wrong valves like they did at Fukushima stopping all cooling of the backup systems for Unit one as I recall. Boom. (Hydrogen Explosion.) Now the remaining nine reactor crews are scrambling to vent their containment so they don't go Boom too. But the vents on the Mark I Containment design are AC powered and Almost all ten of the reactors are down to battery power since the generators in the basement all flooded except for one (but it's switching main was wet and wouldn't work.)
The best laid plans of Men And Mice, frequently go awry.
Because their fuel is so dangerous, Nuclear power plants will always be unsafe until you can eliminate the risk of human error. But since humans design and operate these things, and humans are fallible, that day will never come.
TJ
Thank you, Thomas Jefferson. That was argued with the skill of a MASTER attorney, not to mention a soul endowed with humanity in the form of demanding due diligence of one of modern time's greatest ecological trespassers. Your love of your recent newborn shows through... in your evident concern for others' children.
Thanks so much, Siouxrose,
You made my day with your generous praise. Since that is what I live for, your money won't spend if I ever get over to Florida. I didn't see your post before for some reason. Every time I visit nuke sites or make an anti-nuke post, my connection slows down to nothing, the new posts number listed at CD no longer agree with the post I can see in the thread, etc. Strange troll games, I expect, are afoot!
Did anyone else bother to read the actual scientific abstract ?
found here : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22223329
The french scientist found 14 cases near power plants
14
This means that any statistical analysis is BS.
Power plants may or may not cause childhood leukemia, but the
*SCIENCE*
here is pretty piss poor and doesn't say anything about anything. Liberals and progressives are always ragging on conservatives for dissing science (global warming) well, if you are at all concerned about being scientific, you might not want to take this study to seriously
The abstract was not well written. It was hard to tell the numbers being studied, how they were analyzed or what was the particular role of the 14 cases out of the several thousand studied. I will try to find the whole thing, including methodology and results. But in a country with a national health (hint hint) there are plenty of records available for study and I suspect that there is substance to the relationship between nuclear plants and childhood leukemia.
Excellent observations, TJ. I've thought that way for years.
Human fallibility is critical to the failings of nuclear power. Not merely in the daily operation of any given plant, but in the construction and installation of all the parts that go into such huge "devices."
I began to understand some implications when a local licensed plumber inverted the piping of a hot water heater in my house, and the house caught fire and came close to burning down.
Knowing of our frailties, designers of large engineering projects build in redundancies. If memory serves, when the primary power supply pumping water to cool Fukushima failed, they tried to kick in secondary generators, which also failed. Etc.
The old adage applies: "if something can go wrong, it will." We evolved in a world of fuzzy logic. Perfection is a goal almost never achieved except rarely, as in art, music, and love. The government/industrial/financial empire has been squelching the truth about the dangers of nuclear power for at least 60 years.
Yet, "the truth is out there." Very complex issue, with few independent people having the time or inclination to devote the energy and thought required to fight back. It really is insidious.
-30-
Thanks OleManRiver,
And that kind of rushed plumbing, like in your house, is apparently all that's cooling 12,000 fuel rods from melting down right now at Fukushima. Nuclear Expert and Engineer Arrnie Gundersen has warned none of it is seismic rated, and indeed, Fukushima has seen dozens of earthquakes and aftershocks this year. The one New Year's day was reported by a whistle-blower as a pipe that broke on the #4 SFP causing radiation to rise all over the world. And now much of this jerry-rigged piping is freezing since it wasn't rated for being stretched across the ground out in the open like it is. I've seen pictures and it looks like ground zero covered in rubber hoses...
We are not out of this mess yet, and there's another 400 ticking time-bomb nuclear plants all over the world just waiting for Murphy's Law to do us in. Not smart to let this go on anymore.
You mentioned redundancy, but two decisions on the Design at Fukushima produced what they call in engineering: a "single point failure" which killed that redundant capability before they even built the plant. One was to have all primary heat-exchange cooling with the Ocean from the "Essential Supply pumps" by the Sea INCLUDING the generator cooling water, IIRC. So when tsunami hit, not only did it destroy most of the pumps sitting by the beach that cooled the emergency backup generators, it also swamped those same backup generators since they were in the basement for Earthquake resistance. So out of more than say twelve backup generators at Daichi's six reactors, I heard only a couple kept running after the tidal wave hit. Now they might have been enough to save the day had they been able to cool properly and switch their power on to the flooded electrical bus system. But to save money, they were plumbed into the same freshwater cooling system as the meltdown reactors, and never had a prayer, imho.
The second "single point failure" was the Area Electric grid backup all going through ONE transmission tower to Daichi which toppled when the 9.0 quake hit Fukushima, throwing all reactors onto 8-hr emergency batteries for DAYS.... Of course after 8-hrs the control rooms went completely dark and the remaining Units started exploding.
Airplanes do these kinds of things all the time somewhere in the world, and occasionally it results in AF447 which killed several hundred people. But that disaster didn't shower the rest of us with radiation that will plague our descendants for the next 24,000 years! After spending a life preventing human error, it's clear to me nuclear power generation cannot be fixed; it must be abolished.
TJ
Talking about evidence and proof; In a somewhat related issue - Tepco in Japan is making plans to send people back to the area around the Fukushima reactors. They are planning to open up a day care center and middle school, among other things. I have a suggestion. Let the Tepco executives who are saying it is safe be the first to repopulate the area along with their children and grandchildren.
And take R Finston with them.