The nuclear charm offensive has begun!
We told you that?the?Nuclear Regulatory Commission?asked the?National Academy of Sciences? to find a scientifically sound way to?assess cancer risks in populations near?nuclear plants?? and that?the experts working on the issue responded with their first report last week, saying?it sure as heck won?t be easy.
If the NRC is intent on proceeding with this line of inquiry, there?are?ways to do it ? and it should use San Onofre as one of the?half-dozen?areas to examine under the microscope,?the report said. But such a study must have strong stakeholder buy-in, so the public accepts its findings.
This is where the charm offensive comes in.?Not only can you weigh in with the NRC and tell it what you?d like it to do on the report front (should it proceed with a study of nuclear cancer risk? stand down? Send?your comments to??crs@nas.edu), and not only can you follow study progress on the?NAS web site, but you can also directly query the chairman of the committee that wrote last week?s report ? but only through Wednesday, April 11.
Get those questions in, folks!
?The question of whether there are cancer risks associated with living near a nuclear power plant or another nuclear facility is of great interest to the public, especially those living closest to the facilities,? says?Ask The Chair. ?Airborne and waterborne emissions of radioactive materials from the facilities? normal operations (called effluents) can expose nearby populations to small doses of ionizing radiation, which could potentially elevate the risk of cancer.? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) has been using the results of a 1990 National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey as its primary resource for communicating with the public about cancer risks near the 104 nuclear reactors and 13 fuel cycle facilities that it licenses. However, that study is now outdated and has recognized limitations.?
?A new report from the National Research Council, conducted at the request of the USNRC, evaluates methodologies for assessing cancer risks in populations living near nuclear facilities.? The report identifies two epidemiologic study designs deemed most appropriate to the task based on their scientific merit, their feasibility, and their ability to address some non-scientific concerns that arise for people near nuclear facilities.??A 4-page brief explaining the main findings of the report is available here.
?We invite members of the public to ask any questions they might have to the Chair of the report?s committee,?Dr. John E. Burris.? A biologist, Dr. Burris became the president of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund in 2008. He is the former president of Beloit College and prior to that appointment he served as a director and CEO of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.? He has served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences and on a number of distinguished scientific boards and advisory committees including the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, Japan.
Here are a couple of the questions that Burris has already answered, which will surely be of interest to locals:
?Q:? What have studies to date shown about cancer risks from living near nuclear facilities?
Concerns about the potential health effects from living near nuclear facilities are not new or unique to the United States. A number of epidemiologic studies of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities have been carried out in at least eleven countries (Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States). The majority of these studies investigated rates of cancer deaths or cancer incidence in populations living in various-size geographic units including counties and municipalities. These studies have come to different conclusions, with some suggesting a positive association between living in proximity to a nuclear facility and cancer risk. However, studies have been unable to attribute positive associations to radioactive releases from the facilities.
A widely publicized study with a positive finding is the German?Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken?(KiKK) study, which was carried out by researchers from the German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) in Mainz on behalf of the Federal Office of Radiation Protection. Study results published in 2008 (Kaatsch et al., 2008) indicated that for a child of age 0-5 years, the risk of developing leukemia doubles if that child lives in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. However, the methodology, presentation, and interpretation of results from the study have been strongly criticized.
Results from two other epidemiology studies were published during this Phase 1 study; neither provided significant evidence of a positive association between the plants and cancer risk: The 14th report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), which provided further consideration of the incidence of childhood leukemia around nuclear plants in Great Britain (COMARE 2011), and a study on the risk of childhood leukemia and all childhood cancers in the vicinity of Swiss nuclear plants (Spycher et al., 2011).
A third report from France showed that children living within 5 km of nuclear plants are twice as likely to develop leukemia compared to those living 20 km or further away from the plants. However, analysis of the same population of children using a dose-based geographic zoning approach, instead of distance, did not support the findings. The authors suggest that the absence of any association with the dose-based geographic zoning approach may indicate that the observed association of distance and cancer risk may be due to some unidentified factors other than the releases from the nuclear power plants (Sermage-Faure et al., 2012).
Q: Is it possible to assess the radiation ?dose? received by individuals living near nuclear facilities?
In spite of the challenges of carrying out studies of health effects in populations, the data on radioactive releases from nuclear power plants, direct exposure, and weather data collected by nuclear facility licensees are likely to be sufficiently accurate to develop annual dose estimates that adequately reflect variations as a function of distance and direction.
?Environmental monitoring data have limited usefulness for estimating doses from effluent releases around nuclear plants and fuel cycle facilities. Almost all environmental measurements reported by facilities are either below the minimum detection limits or are not sensitive enough to allow for the development of adequate dose estimates.
Computer models have been developed to estimate absorbed doses in individuals exposed to radiation from airborne and waterborne radioactive effluent releases. These models combine information on effluent release timing and magnitude, transport of the released effluents through the environment, and the exposure of individuals to radiation from these releases to estimate absorbed doses. Such models could be used to estimate doses to individuals near nuclear facilities to support an epidemiology study.
Absorbed doses to individuals near nuclear facilities are anticipated to be very low, in most cases well below variations in levels of natural background radiation in the vicinity of individual facilities. Absorbed doses to these individuals are also anticipated to be below levels of radiation received by some members of the public from medical procedures and air travel. Consequently, dose estimates used in an epidemiologic study need to account for these other sources of radiation exposures and possibly for other potential confounding factors such as exposure to hazardous (and potentially carcinogenic) materials released from industrial facilities located near nuclear facilities.
More nuclear stuff:
More Watchdog:
detroit tigers fred thompson fred thompson red hook romney tax return the tree of life movie academy award nominees 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.