Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 9 minutes]

Myth:  Nuclear Power Plants Cause Cancer

Few words in the English language invoke feelings of unrest and controversy as the word “nuclear”.  Historically, the word has been associated with feelings of uncertainty, fear or danger, and understandably so, as nuclear technology made its debut in the mainstream media by way of its use in weapons of mass destruction.  But as the general public becomes more aware and educated on the subject, many are finding that nuclear has nothing more than a bad rap.

As an illustration, let me pose this question:  When you think of gasoline, does your mind initially wander to Napalm?  Or better yet, does the use of fertilizer lead to thoughts of home made bombs?  There are a slew of atrocious myths circulating about nuclear power which are perceived as fact by many for this very reason.  One common misconception is that nuclear power plants emit substantial levels of radiation leading many to believe that operating nuclear power plants are surrounded by disfigured wildlife or that nearby residents are at a higher risk of contracting cancer or growing a third arm.
The truth is that the highly regulated nuclear industry takes the safety of the general public as its primary initiative through many stringently enforced radiological safeguards.  Among the physical barriers incorporated into the design of the plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enforces a number of requirements and expectations on the industry.
Take, for example, the policy statement issued by the NRC in 1986 which established safety goals and expectations with respect to an acceptable level of risk to public health and safety from the operation of nuclear power plants. According to the policy statement, the following goal was implemented as follows:

“ . . . the risk of cancer fatalities to the population near a nuclear power plant should not exceed 0.1% of the sum of cancer fatality risks from all other causes.”

As reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 180.7 cancers (i.e. malignant neoplasms) related deaths occurred per 100,000 people in 2006.  Taking this value into account with the NRC’s expectations discussed above, for a population of 100,000 people living near a nuclear power plant the risk of cancer fatalities should not exceed 0.001 x (180.7 / 100,000) = 0.000181% – still concerned?

One might argue that NO cancer related deaths should be tolerated – agreed!  Studies show that this is in fact the case and that plants exceed the NRC’s expectations (discussed further below).

The reality is, however, that we live in a radioactive world – this has been true since the beginning of time – and everyone is exposed to varying levels of radiation on a daily basis.  Take for example bananas and brazil nuts, which naturally contain higher levels of radiation than other foods.  Similarly, brick and stone homes have higher natural radiation levels than homes made of other building materials such as wood. Heck, our nation’s Capitol, which is largely constructed of granite, contains higher levels of natural radiation than most homes.  JunkScience.com once measured the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.

The chart below provides a comparison for doses from everyday radiation sources relative to living near a nuclear power plant, which exposes residents to an average annual dose of less than 0.001 rem.  In comparison, Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20) dictates that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from a licensed operating plant is not to exceed 0.1 rem in a year.

For additional consideration, the pie chart presented is from the NRC’s website and provides a percentage breakdown between natural background radiation and artificial sources.  I believe the numbers speak for themselves.

The NRC similarly limits the amount of radiation that a nuclear plant worker can receive in one year.  Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), establishes the does limits for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent for the whole body is 5 rem, although many plants go even further to restrict employees to 2 rem per year.  In contrast, the Federal Aviation Administrations recommended occupational exposure limit for ionizing radiation is a 5-year average effective dose of 20 mSv (2 rem) per year, with no more than 50 mSv (5 rem) in a

single year (nearly the same standard).

Regulations imposed on nuclear power plants ensure that both the surrounding population and the workers within plants are exposed to only low levels of radiation.  The fact of the matter is that the biological effects due to low levels of radiation exposure are so small that they may not even be detectable.  The exact effect, however, depends on the specific type and intensity of the radiation exposure.

In order to truly wrap your mind around the risks associated with radiation exposure, it is useful to evaluate those risks relative to the risks associated with everyday life.  For example, a 3-millirem exposure imposes the same chance of death — 1 in a million — as each of the following common life experiences:

• Spending 2 days in New York City (because of the air quality)
• Riding 1 mile on a motorcycle or 300 miles in a car (because of the risk of collision)
• Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter (because of aflotoxin) or 10 charbroiled steaks
• Smoking 1 cigarette

Dr. Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh has extrapolated this approach in his book “The Nuclear Energy Option”.  In Chapter 8 of the book, Understanding Risk, Dr. Cohen instructs that the most logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger.  He then goes on to provide a framework for that process and applies it to the risks in generating electric power.  Chapter 8 presents various everyday activities or occurrences and their associated risks.  These risks are quantified then in terms of the loss of life expectancy (LLE); which is the average amount by which one’s life is shortened by the risk under consideration.  The figure below shows some of the activities or occurrences investigated.  It is clearly shown that living near a nuclear power plant ranks at the bottom.

Further substantiating his findings, Dr. Cohens work is also published by the NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.29.  RG 8.29 offers further indication that:

“. . . the health risks from occupational radiation exposure are smaller than the risks associated with many other events or activities we encounter and accept in normal day-to-day activity.”

As mentioned earlier, countless studies have shown that populations in close proximity to a nuclear power plant receive negligible levels of radiation exposure relative to general population and are no more susceptible to cancer than the average person.

It is impractical to discuss every study ever conducted by any organization or individual regarding this matter.  Instead I have listed a few additional determinations or studies from non-bias organizations concluding such.

• The American Cancer Society blatantly backs this notion on their website with the following statement:

“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near the plants. Reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, but studies show clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do elsewhere.”

• A survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power plants, 9 Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and 1 commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the startup of the facilities was compared with cancer rates in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities.

The results of the survey, per John Boice, Sc.D.(who was chief of NCI’s Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey), showed that “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities”.

• In a response to ongoing public concern over the risk of people living near nuclear facilities, a publication of the Illinois Department of Public Health examined the pediatric cancer risk in relation to the proximity of nuclear power plants in Illinois.  Evaluations were conducted at both the county and ZIP code levels. Age-adjusted cancer incidence and mortality rates for children aged from 0 to 14 for years 1990 to 2002 were calculated for nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group, respectively, and then compared with those for the matched non-nuclear facility county group or non-nuclear facility ZIP code group.

The results of the publication The results indicate that pediatric cancer incidence and mortality rates for the nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group were not significantly different from those for their comparison groups. In addition, there was no evidence of increased trend in cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants.

• The accident at Three Mile Island 2, what is considered the worst nuclear related accident ever to occur in the United States, caused no injuries to workers or the public.  At least a dozen epidemiological studies conducted since 1981 have found no discernible direct health effects to the population in the vicinity of the facility. Studies of the consequences of the accident were conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Energy and the state of Pennsylvania. The average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem, according to the results of these and independent studies.  The public’s average dose from natural radiation is 100-125 millirem per year for that area.

In the decades following the accident, several studies were conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, all showing conclusive evidence that no negative health effects on the population surrounding the plant. In addition to the Pennsylvania Health Department studies, several other studies have examined the health impact of the TMI accident on the population and yielded similar results.

The key to dispelling this myth is to acknowlege that, as demonstrated:

1. Any increased risk of cancer around an operating nuclear power plant relies primarily on the adverse effects resulting from any small amount of radiation it might release.
2. No single person can go through life without experiencing some level of radiation dose on a daily basis.
3. The levels of radiation emitted at or near a nuclear power plant, and the associated level of risk, are negligible in comparison to that experienced in commonly occurring events and activities experienced by most on a day-to-day basis.

Once you are able to come to terms with these facts (and I hope that this article is of some help) it becomes painstakingly obvious that, contrary to popular belief, nuclear power plants do NOT cause cancer, and in fact pose no more threat to an individuals health than 365 Tbsps of peanut butter.

Myth Busted!

Next Wednesday, Adam Johnson will address the myth that as nuclear power plants age, they become more risky.

( By AQG ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Florida Power & Light (FPL) has revealed its intentions of building two of Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactors at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant through the submittal of a combined construction and operating license applications with the NRC.  If approved, the units will join two other pressurized water reactors as well as two gas/oil units and a combined cycle natural gas turbine.  The sixth and seventh power units at the site could reach an operational state around the end of 2017 and 2019.  Here’s an excerpt from the World Nuclear News website:

“The application was made some three weeks ago but FPL and the NRC both decided not to tell anyone about the $12 billion project. Documents relating to the application can all now be found in the New Reactors section of the NRC public website.

Details in the documents reveal FPLs cost projections for the new build. Based on three cases with varying owner scope and transmission costs, the total estimated project cost including escalation and additional funds for the construction period varies from $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion.

FPL has asked the NRC for permission to conduct certain work towards construction before a COL is actually issued. The company wants to clear and excavate the site and lay foundations for the reactor and plant buildings.”

( By AQG ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

French nuclear giant AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding to break ground this evening on the first full-scale manufacturing facility dedicated to supply heavy components to the nuclear industry.  Click here to see the webcast live beginning at 6:00 p.m. EST.

AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, a sector of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC), have joined forces to build a new manufacturing and engineering facility in Newport News, Va., to supply the growing American nuclear energy sector. AREVA Newport News will be the first full-scale manufacturing facility dedicated to supply heavy components, such as reactor vessels, steam generators and pressurizers to the U.S.U.S. nuclear power plants to be built in 35 years. AREVA has been manufacturing quality heavy components for the global commercial nuclear industry for more than 30 years at its Chalon/St. Marcel plant. Industry experts have viewed limited production of heavy components positioned against rising demand as a constraint on nuclear energy’s expansion. The joint venture aims to establish a facility for manufacturing heavy components for the U.S. EPR, AREVA’s Generation III+ nuclear reactor. nuclear energy industry. These components will supply the first new

Together with Northrop Grumman’s experience, AREVA Newport News will provide a secure domestic link in the supply chain for deploying the U.S. EPR and supporting a diverse energy mix that will mean safe, clean, affordable electricity for Americans.

The 300,000 square-foot facility is estimated to bring more than 500 skilled hourly and salaried jobs to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

( By AQG )

Hyperion Power Module (HPM)

In the midst of what many are calling the dawn of a Nuclear Renaissance, nuclear power has become the center of discussion for many proponents of “green” or “clean” energy.

Currently, 104 nuclear power plants across the nation contribute to around 20% of the United States national electricity generation.  This share in production is supplied by the traditional, large nuclear reactors constructed throughout the 60’s, 70’s and into the part of the 1980’s.

The existence of these operating plants has not come without considerable resistance.  Opponents of nuclear power have for many years argued the overall safety and reliability of the industry, citing accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as their source of concern.  However, as facts become more evident to the general public and the impeccable safety record of the industry continues forward, more and more people are expressing their support for the industry.

One particular obstacle is that of the not in my back yard (or NIMBY) concept where a group or community that may not necessarily oppose nuclear power, does not warm up to the idea of building such a large facility close by.  This article, from the Wall Street Journal, discusses the emerging interest in small reactors that could provide additional versatility or leverage for the industry to appease such groups, while offering a cheaper, and arguably safer alternative for remote locations or areas of less than dense population.  Interesting to say the least.

“All of the new start-up reactors are tiny compared to the 104 old ones, each of which was custom designed for and constructed at the site of its utility power plant. Small enough to fit on a large kitchen table, the new reactors can be manufactured at very low cost and shipped by truck to power-plant sites.

These new small reactors meet important criteria for nuclear power plants. With no control rods to jam, they are far safer than the old models — you might well call them nuclear batteries. By not using weapons-grade enriched fuels, they are nonproliferating. They minimize nuclear waste. And they’re economical.

The start-ups estimate that it will cost each of them roughly $100 million and five years to get their small reactor designs certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. About $50 million of each $100 million would go to the commission itself.”