It has been 20 years since the federal government tried to determine whether living near a nuclear power plant is bad for your health.
That don't-worry-be-happy report has been attacked as deeply flawed:
- It tracked mortablity rates based on where people died, rather than where they lived before getting cancer.
- Tracking deaths - rather than how many people actually got cancer - may downplay the full health impact of living near a reactor (since many cancer patients, after all, survive).
- It used countywide data to reach conclusions - a blunt instrument that may again downplay the impact on those living closest to a reactor. (Residents in La Habra and San Clemente live in the same county - but few will argue that their exposure to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is the same.)
So there was some rejoicing Wednesday when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it has asked the National Academy of Sciences to do a "state-of-the-art study on cancer risk for populations surrounding nuclear power facilities." The two agencies will finalize administrative details through the spring, so the study can begin this summer, the NRC said in a news release.
"We're pleased the Academy is interested in taking on this important study," Brian Sheron of the NRC was quoted as saying. "Their broad range of medical and scientific experts can give us the best available analysis of the complex issues involved in discussing cancer risk and commercial nuclear power plants."
U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has been badgering the NRC to do this for years. "We need to ensure that this new study examines rates of cancer incidence, utilizes relevant data, and is conducted independently,"Markey told The Hill.
What with San Onofre's license up for renewal in 2022, and its recent woes with human performance, the nuclear plant's neighbors will surely be eager to learn the results.
Source Orange County Register
