Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 07:06 AM Mar 2014

NAS Study on Cancer Risks near Nuclear Power Plants - Public Meeting - Irvine CA, April 3

http://rceezwhatsup.blogspot.com/2014/03/43-irvine-ca-study-on-cancer-risks-near.html

<snip>

The National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS’) Committee tasked with planning the pilot study of Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities is scheduled to hold a public meeting at 1:30-4:00 PM on Thursday, April 3, 2014 at the Beckman Center located in Irvine, California. A draft agenda for the public meeting is attached (all times are Pacific).

Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting or view the presentations via WebEx should register here: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1577902/CancerRiskAprilRegistration

Members of the press who wish to attend the meeting should contact Lauren Rugani, media officer, at 202 334 3593 or LRugani@nas.edu.

Study at a Glance

NAS will perform the pilot study of cancer risks in populations near seven U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.NRC)-licensed nuclear facilities using two epidemiologic study designs: (i) an ecologic study of multiple cancer types of populations of all ages and (ii) a record-linkage-based case-control study of cancers in children. The pilot study will have two steps: Pilot Planning and Pilot Execution. NAS has started the Pilot Planning step which is estimated to take one year to complete.

The seven nuclear facilities that are part of the pilot study are:

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, Illinois
Millstone Power Station, Waterford, Connecticut
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River
New Jersey Haddam Neck, Haddam Neck, Connecticut
Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, San Clemente, California
Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tennessee


<snip>


2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NAS Study on Cancer Risks near Nuclear Power Plants - Public Meeting - Irvine CA, April 3 (Original Post) bananas Mar 2014 OP
This is JUST NOW being done? djean111 Mar 2014 #1
Oh, there have been studies... bananas Mar 2014 #2
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
1. This is JUST NOW being done?
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 07:23 AM
Mar 2014

I could swear I have been told that there is no risk, living near nuclear plants.
If I was cynical, I would expect the studies to say that hey! It is healthier to live near nuclear plants! We should build more!
Free chemotherapy!

bananas

(27,509 posts)
2. Oh, there have been studies...
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 10:50 AM
Mar 2014
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nuclear-607540-diablo-health.html

Researchers consider: How risky is that radiation?

By TERI SFORZA / Staff Columnist
Published: March 29, 2014 Updated: 9:16 p.m.

The baby teeth of kids living near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant contained radioactive Strontium-90 – which can cause bone cancer and leukemia – at levels nearly one-third higher than in the baby teeth of other California kids, says a controversial study released last week.

<snip>

“Yes, the industry is savaging the study,” he told us by email. “But I hope a good journalist like you remembers to ask them: What proof do they have that the plant is safe? (Or, why haven’t any studies of health near Diablo Canyon been done since the plant opened in 1984)?

Aren’t they actually criticizing the messenger, and ignoring the message (trends in local disease and death rates, which comes from official sources like the NRC and CDC)? Isn’t the savaging the same as was done to Rachel Carson by the pesticide industry, after her seminal book in 1962 (Silent Spring)? Or Dr. Alice Stewart when she found that a low-dose abdominal X-ray to a pregnant woman nearly doubled the chance the child would die of cancer by age 10 (in 1958)? There are more examples, but both were later upheld and accepted, and led to changes in practice.

Actually, no, there haven’t been official health studies to measure trends in local disease and death rates lately – which brings us back to the NAS, which is trying, finally, to do that.

Anti-nuclear activist Ace Hoffman of Carlsbad attended the NAS’ last meeting about the study in Irvine, and plans to be at this one as well. He and his wife were the only citizens who spoke during the public comment period.

“I had a brief conversation with one of the scientists who had studied radiation damage all his adult life, mostly at a university in Utah,” Hoffman told us by email. “I complained that we are a long way from finding the true nature of low level radiation damage, and he agreed, but said we are inching closer and closer all the time. …

<snip>

Donna Gilmore, who runs the critical sanonofresafety.org website, said she understands the limitations of the controversial Diablo study, but that the well-vetted French and German leukemia studies should be all the proof we need.

<snip>


Via http://nuclear-news.net/2014/03/31/is-living-next-to-a-nuclear-reactor-bad-for-your-health/
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»NAS Study on Cancer Risks...