Fukishima a year later.

brianlux

We would do well to not forget these events nor the fact that the danger from nuclear radiation persist.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/fukushi ... 20305.html

http://obrag.org/?p=55786

http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... Fukushima/

Leyna Minai

So scary what happened over there..it was an intense moment since I have family in Japan :(
I wish I could do something to help.

StillHere

very sad
will never forget
its the children who suffer the most
(and the parents of those children)
yes, here too :(

brianlux

If any of you want to be a little more active on this issue and haven't already, you can go here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/

Greenpeace has done great work in this area.

StillHere

Brian, we live just a few miles from the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant in PA (I can see it from the end of my block) and it is a constant source of concern for me. I am planning on moving in a year and a half but that only solves the problem for me...and only in regards to every day exposure so what I'm trying to say is that I have so much compassion for those people and what they are going through. Its so tough to get to the truth and heart of it all...even when there is only a minor glitch, you don't get the truth for a long long time.

I am checking out the GreenPeace link you put up. Thanks for keeping attention on this. Hopefully (maybe wishful thinking) there will never be another like it.........now I"m going to go make sure that my KI tablets are not expired...

Sure wish there was a working viable alternative large scale. Doesn't look as if its ever going to happen....after all...there is no threat, right? geeebus :roll:

brianlux

StillHere wrote:

Brian, we live just a few miles from the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant in PA (I can see it from the end of my block) and it is a constant source of concern for me. I am planning on moving in a year and a half but that only solves the problem for me...and only in regards to every day exposure so what I'm trying to say is that I have so much compassion for those people and what they are going through. Its so tough to get to the truth and heart of it all...even when there is only a minor glitch, you don't get the truth for a long long time.

I am checking out the GreenPeace link you put up. Thanks for keeping attention on this. Hopefully (maybe wishful thinking) there will never be another like it.........now I"m going to go make sure that my KI tablets are not expired...

Sure wish there was a working viable alternative large scale. Doesn't look as if its ever going to happen....after all...there is no threat, right? geeebus :roll:

I totally understand, Jo. I lived in western New York State in 1979 during the Three Mile Island melt down. My grandmother lived in Lebanon, PA at the time and I drove all night to pick her up and bring her back up to where I was living along Lake Erie. She wanted to say bye to a friend who refused to leave so I was in the area longer than I'd like to have been. On the darkest nights do I glow a little- only wouldn't you know, never on Halloween!

All joking aside, your concerns are quite valid-- I understand. Glad to hear you're moving!

I honestly don't think we have a viable alternative to our energy consumption at the scale we in the US currently use. I think our best option is conservation. There are so many ways to conserve energy if we just take the time to educate ourselves and our kids and just do them. The other good tip I learned from reading Wendell Berry is the idea of buying things that are durable, simple and easy to fix. For example, buying one good pair of pliers that will last a life time saves energy used in manufacturing as opposed to buying a cheap one that has to be replaced again and again. And in the long run, one good $15 tool saves money over 3 cheap $6 tools.

StillHere

brianlux wrote:

StillHere wrote:

Brian, we live just a few miles from the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant in PA (I can see it from the end of my block) and it is a constant source of concern for me. I am planning on moving in a year and a half but that only solves the problem for me...and only in regards to every day exposure so what I'm trying to say is that I have so much compassion for those people and what they are going through. Its so tough to get to the truth and heart of it all...even when there is only a minor glitch, you don't get the truth for a long long time.

I am checking out the GreenPeace link you put up. Thanks for keeping attention on this. Hopefully (maybe wishful thinking) there will never be another like it.........now I"m going to go make sure that my KI tablets are not expired...

Sure wish there was a working viable alternative large scale. Doesn't look as if its ever going to happen....after all...there is no threat, right? geeebus :roll:

I totally understand, Jo. I lived in western New York State in 1979 during the Three Mile Island melt down. My grandmother lived in Lebanon, PA at the time and I drove all night to pick her up and bring her back up to where I was living along Lake Erie. She wanted to say bye to a friend who refused to leave so I was in the area longer than I'd like to have been. On the darkest nights do I glow a little- only wouldn't you know, never on Halloween!

All joking aside, your concerns are quite valid-- I understand. Glad to hear you're moving!

I honestly don't think we have a viable alternative to our energy consumption at the scale we in the US currently use. I think our best option is conservation. There are so many ways to conserve energy if we just take the time to educate ourselves and our kids and just do them. The other good tip I learned from reading Wendell Berry is the idea of buying things that are durable, simple and easy to fix. For example, buying one good pair of pliers that will last a life time saves energy used in manufacturing as opposed to buying a cheap one that has to be replaced again and again. And in the long run, one good $15 tool saves money over 3 cheap $6 tools.

totally agree...try to do that always..its worth it to spend a little more initally and save a lot more in the long run...and waste less. i also find alternate/secondary uses for just about EVERYTHING you wouldn't believe some of the stuff i'm probably glowing by now too...best to you my friend

unsung

I work in the industry and I hope they build a hundred more.

StillHere

unsung wrote:

I work in the industry and I hope they build a hundred more.

it doesn't scare you in the least?
can you tell me why...if you're serious...I'd like to feel a teeny bit better about my neighborhood

although cancer rates for adults and children have soared beyond belief since its been operational

and especially kids' leukemia and other blood cancers

that can't be good news in anybody's book

unsung

An I scared about nuclear? No.

If you are saying Limerick (is that the station?) has caused cancer rates to soar out of control like Chernobyl (even that area is returning to pre accident levels) I would have to see the study.

However I believe I remember seeing a study about estimated life expectancy reduction due to certain environmental issues and being an employee in the industry reduces your life by about a week. I assure you I get much higher radiation dose than probably everyone else on this forum, and I'm not worried in the least bit.

Do you smoke by chance?

satansbed

it actually turns out that chernoyble hasn't led to any major increase in cancer or birth deformities

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 17002.html

brianlux

unsung wrote:

I work in the industry and I hope they build a hundred more.

Lovely. Let's just ruin the planet and be done with it.

Your response is a callus disregard for the lives of many people in Japan who have died and are still suffering. If you had said, "I'm sorry people were hurt but I think we can work to build save nuclear energy", or something like that I would still disagree with you but respect your opinion. Instead you choose to make an insensitive, derogatory, bating statement. :thumbdown:

brianlux

satansbed wrote:

it actually turns out that chernoyble hasn't led to any major increase in cancer or birth deformities

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 17002.html

There are plenty of stories that tell the horrible tale or Chernobyl like this one. Many people died.

http://villageofjoy.com/chernobyl-today ... -pictures/

satansbed

brianlux wrote:

satansbed wrote:

it actually turns out that chernoyble hasn't led to any major increase in cancer or birth deformities

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 17002.html

There are plenty of stories that tell the horrible tale or Chernobyl like this one. Many people died.

http://villageofjoy.com/chernobyl-today ... -pictures/

that doesn't really prove anything. it really just is a random block with pictures of the random zone


while the writer of my article is the Chairman of Molecular Therapeutics for Cancer Ireland. Lectured in more than 40 countries. Degrees in medicine, science and business administration. Awarded professorships in cancer research from Dublin City University and University College Dublin. Author of 150 research papers and Recipient of awards from the American Cancer Society, European Society of Medical Oncology.

here is his primary source by the way

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

brianlux

satansbed wrote:

brianlux wrote:

satansbed wrote:

it actually turns out that chernoyble hasn't led to any major increase in cancer or birth deformities

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 17002.html

There are plenty of stories that tell the horrible tale or Chernobyl like this one. Many people died.

http://villageofjoy.com/chernobyl-today ... -pictures/

that doesn't really prove anything. it really just is a random block with pictures of the random zone


while the writer of my article is the Chairman of Molecular Therapeutics for Cancer Ireland. Lectured in more than 40 countries. Degrees in medicine, science and business administration. Awarded professorships in cancer research from Dublin City University and University College Dublin. Author of 150 research papers and Recipient of awards from the American Cancer Society, European Society of Medical Oncology.

here is his primary source by the way

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

What is your point and why have you posted it here? I put up this thread with the intent of honoring those who suffered and still suffered a great tragedy and as a reminder that there are great dangers involved with nuclear power.

satansbed

brianlux wrote:

What is your point and why have you posted it here? I put up this thread with the intent of honoring those who suffered and still suffered a great tragedy and as a reminder that there are great dangers involved with nuclear power.

and im saying the dangers arent as great as you are saying.

infact nuclear energy is possibly the best way to allow us to remove our dependency on fossil fuels.

Pepe Silvia

but i thought obama said nuclear power was green???

Pepe Silvia

satansbed wrote:

brianlux wrote:

What is your point and why have you posted it here? I put up this thread with the intent of honoring those who suffered and still suffered a great tragedy and as a reminder that there are great dangers involved with nuclear power.

and im saying the dangers arent as great as you are saying.

infact nuclear energy is possibly the best way to allow us to remove our dependency on fossil fuels.

where are ya gonna store the waste? because the DOE says yucca mountain isn't suitable as a permanent location and they have already had a bunch of leaks from waste there, which spills into the porous mountain

Pepe Silvia

unsung wrote:

I work in the industry and I hope they build a hundred more.

and who will pay for them? oh right, your industry relies on our tax dollars and corporate welfare.....

StillHere

unsung wrote:

An I scared about nuclear? No.

If you are saying Limerick (is that the station?) has caused cancer rates to soar out of control like Chernobyl (even that area is returning to pre accident levels) I would have to see the study.

However I believe I remember seeing a study about estimated life expectancy reduction due to certain environmental issues and being an employee in the industry reduces your life by about a week. I assure you I get much higher radiation dose than probably everyone else on this forum, and I'm not worried in the least bit.

Do you smoke by chance?

Me? Smoke? Cigarettes? Absolutely NOT! and no one smokes in my home (if you want to smoke anything, you need to go outside)

You can find the study on cancer rates near Limerick, especially childhood cancer rates, but you can see the entire population as compared to surrounding areas, state, and US incidental rates. It's not encouraging...matter of fact it is THE reason I am moving out of here before the family grows any larger. (daughter's baby is due in September) <<<<<

I am NOT an alarmist, I am NOT by nature a paranoid person ... I am probably one of the most laid back people you'd ever meet...a little too laid back some would say....nevertheless...THIS worries me, and I'm not apologizing for it, no way.

http://www.acereport.org/statistics.html (see some excerpts below)

and THIS >>> Happens quite frequently .... we find out about it "later" if at all....sirens are tested once a month...KI tablets are given out in town at the Health Dept building...... i do not like it sam i am

NRC: Limerick Nuclear Generator ‘Scrams’ For Second Time In 36 Hours
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/06/04/nrc-limerick-nuclear-generator-scrams-for-second-time-in-36-hours/
Third unplanned shutdown reported at Limerick nuclear plant
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2011/ ... 502464.txt
Published: Saturday, June 04, 2011; Last Updated: Sat. Jun 4, 2011, 10:55am
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=210685.0;wap2
The shutdown, sometimes called a "scram," was conducted because of a problem that "affected the plant's recirculation pumps"
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Limerick-Nuclear-Power-Plant-scram-reactor-today
Another "Scram" at Limerick Nuclear Plant
Unit 1 shut down unexpectedly at about 10:15am today. The cause is under investigation. Unit 2 shut down due to a faulty turbine valve earlier this week.
http://malvern.patch.com/articles/another-scram-at-limerick-nuclear-plant-3



Seismic risk Granted..it is low...probably VERY low, but we did have an eye-opener this past year:

http://montgomerynews.com/articles/2012/02/06/springford_reporter_valley_item/news/doc4f30210a94533135906600.txt
REVALUATION Ordered (after Earthquake here on) Aug. 23 when a 5.8-magnitude earthquake centered in Louisa County, Va., spawned tremors that were felt as far north as New York City near the North Anna Nuclear Plant.
.....
Although earthquake risk is indeed low, it is higher than it was believed when the Limerick plant was constructed.

In September, the Associated Press published a report analyzing NRC data and concluding that “the risk an earthquake would cause a severe accident at a U.S. nuclear plant is greater than previously thought - 24 times as high.....

.....
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Limerick was 1 in 18,868, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.[6][7] Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, government regulators announced the plant would undergo further evaluations for seismic activity risk.[8][/url]

But we've had a couple/few good ones over the last few years...and we ARE on a fault line at the Delaware....you may say no risk, but I don't want to be here when the 1 in 18,868 comes down the pike


and then there's this....always http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/public-to-have-voice-on-limerick-nuclear-plant-s-future/article_b5f5b1ea-3a66-5c48-bf7e-68bb1ba7102a.html but it doesn't mean a thing, really


Excerpts from the ACE Report

this report takes into account the so called Triple Threat here in Montgomery County, more accurately the Greater Pottstown Area (that's me)

Alarming Statistics

Greater Pottstown Area - Cancer Incidence Rates

Leukemia - Nearly Double the Pennsylvania Rate
Lung Cancer - 22% to 33% higher than the Tri-County
Cervical Cancer - 2 1/2 to 3 times higher than the Tri-County

Source: Montgomery County Health Department Cancer Investigation Reported January, 1998

Childhood Cancer
Update – September, 2002

Greater Pottstown Area Statistics
Pottstown Borough, West Pottsgrove, Lower Pottsgrove, Upper Pottsgove
North Coventry, and Douglass Berks Township

Source: PA Cancer Registry Data for 1995–1999

Childhood Cancers Compared to the National Average (Ages 0-19)
All Cancers Diagnosed from 1995–1999 for the Greater Pottstown Area, Tri-County Area, and State

Greater Pottstown Area + 92.5%
Tri-County Area (Montgomery, Berks, Chester) - 0.8%
Pennsylvania - 2.9%

Leukemia and brain/central nervous system cancers comprise half of these childhood cancers.

Greater Pottstown Area Children have cancer rates almost 100% higher than the remainder of the Tri County Area and PA, and 92.5 % higher than the national average.


Children Are The Barometers Of Our Society


......

So what is the difference between our children and those who live in other parts of the county, the state, and the nation?

Greater Pottstown Area children face a “CHEMICAL PLAGUE”. They are overexposed to massive cancer causing chemicals emitted into the air they breathe 24 hours a day, every day, close to their homes, schools, athletic fields, and parks. The TOXIC TRIANGLE is the MAJOR DIFFERENCE!

These shocking childhood cancer statistics demonstrate the need for immediate action to reduce and/or eliminate cancer risks for Greater Pottstown Area children.

Montgomery County - Rising Death Rates


Childhood (age 1-14) Cancer Death Rate Rose 71% from 1980s to 1990s Childhood cancer deaths are down in surrounding counties, state, & nation
Asthma (all ages) Death Rate Rose 33% from 1980s to 1990s

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease control (CDC)
For more information on these statistics contact Joseph Mangano (718) 857-9825


Montgomery County - Rising Cancer Incidence
1985-1986 to 1996-97 - largest increases in newly-diagnosed cases


Prostate +132%
Thyroid +128%
Kidney + 96%
Multiple Myeloma + 91%
Melanoma (Skin) + 72%
Hodgkin's Disease + 67%
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma + 61%
Breast + 61%
Pancreas + 54%
Leukemia + 48%


Source: Pennsylvania State Cancer Registry
For more information on these statistics contact Joseph Mangano (718) 857-9825


People In Montgomery County Need Toxic Release Reductions
Over 670,000 people in Montgomery County face a cancer risk more than 100 times the goal set by the Clean Air Act. (Environmental Defense Scorecard)

More to read at the website
and plenty more studies available..just Google

I'm sure that I can find thousands of articles just like this
and that
You can find just as many supporting your point of view

However, I choose not to wait around with my head in the sand until one or the other is proven

OK I'm done for now
Just thought I'd put something out there to support my point of view

Thanks Brian for opening this discussion

satansbed

StillHere wrote:

unsung wrote:

An I scared about nuclear? No.

If you are saying Limerick (is that the station?) has caused cancer rates to soar out of control like Chernobyl (even that area is returning to pre accident levels) I would have to see the study.

However I believe I remember seeing a study about estimated life expectancy reduction due to certain environmental issues and being an employee in the industry reduces your life by about a week. I assure you I get much higher radiation dose than probably everyone else on this forum, and I'm not worried in the least bit.

Do you smoke by chance?

Me? Smoke? Cigarettes? Absolutely NOT! and no one smokes in my home (if you want to smoke anything, you need to go outside)

You can find the study on cancer rates near Limerick, especially childhood cancer rates, but you can see the entire population as compared to surrounding areas, state, and US incidental rates. It's not encouraging...matter of fact it is THE reason I am moving out of here before the family grows any larger. (daughter's baby is due in September) <<<<<

I am NOT an alarmist, I am NOT by nature a paranoid person ... I am probably one of the most laid back people you'd ever meet...a little too laid back some would say....nevertheless...THIS worries me, and I'm not apologizing for it, no way.

http://www.acereport.org/statistics.html (see some excerpts below)

and THIS >>> Happens quite frequently .... we find out about it "later" if at all....sirens are tested once a month...KI tablets are given out in town at the Health Dept building...... i do not like it sam i am

NRC: Limerick Nuclear Generator ‘Scrams’ For Second Time In 36 Hours
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/06/04/nrc-limerick-nuclear-generator-scrams-for-second-time-in-36-hours/
Third unplanned shutdown reported at Limerick nuclear plant
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2011/ ... 502464.txt
Published: Saturday, June 04, 2011; Last Updated: Sat. Jun 4, 2011, 10:55am
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=210685.0;wap2
The shutdown, sometimes called a "scram," was conducted because of a problem that "affected the plant's recirculation pumps"
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Limerick-Nuclear-Power-Plant-scram-reactor-today
Another "Scram" at Limerick Nuclear Plant
Unit 1 shut down unexpectedly at about 10:15am today. The cause is under investigation. Unit 2 shut down due to a faulty turbine valve earlier this week.
http://malvern.patch.com/articles/another-scram-at-limerick-nuclear-plant-3



Seismic risk Granted..it is low...probably VERY low, but we did have an eye-opener this past year:

http://montgomerynews.com/articles/2012/02/06/springford_reporter_valley_item/news/doc4f30210a94533135906600.txt
REVALUATION Ordered (after Earthquake here on) Aug. 23 when a 5.8-magnitude earthquake centered in Louisa County, Va., spawned tremors that were felt as far north as New York City near the North Anna Nuclear Plant.
.....
Although earthquake risk is indeed low, it is higher than it was believed when the Limerick plant was constructed.

In September, the Associated Press published a report analyzing NRC data and concluding that “the risk an earthquake would cause a severe accident at a U.S. nuclear plant is greater than previously thought - 24 times as high.....

.....
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Limerick was 1 in 18,868, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.[6][7] Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, government regulators announced the plant would undergo further evaluations for seismic activity risk.[8][/url]

But we've had a couple/few good ones over the last few years...and we ARE on a fault line at the Delaware....you may say no risk, but I don't want to be here when the 1 in 18,868 comes down the pike


and then there's this....always http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/public-to-have-voice-on-limerick-nuclear-plant-s-future/article_b5f5b1ea-3a66-5c48-bf7e-68bb1ba7102a.html but it doesn't mean a thing, really


Excerpts from the ACE Report

this report takes into account the so called Triple Threat here in Montgomery County, more accurately the Greater Pottstown Area (that's me)

Alarming Statistics

Greater Pottstown Area - Cancer Incidence Rates

Leukemia - Nearly Double the Pennsylvania Rate
Lung Cancer - 22% to 33% higher than the Tri-County
Cervical Cancer - 2 1/2 to 3 times higher than the Tri-County

Source: Montgomery County Health Department Cancer Investigation Reported January, 1998

Childhood Cancer
Update – September, 2002

Greater Pottstown Area Statistics
Pottstown Borough, West Pottsgrove, Lower Pottsgrove, Upper Pottsgove
North Coventry, and Douglass Berks Township

Source: PA Cancer Registry Data for 1995–1999

Childhood Cancers Compared to the National Average (Ages 0-19)
All Cancers Diagnosed from 1995–1999 for the Greater Pottstown Area, Tri-County Area, and State

Greater Pottstown Area + 92.5%
Tri-County Area (Montgomery, Berks, Chester) - 0.8%
Pennsylvania - 2.9%

Leukemia and brain/central nervous system cancers comprise half of these childhood cancers.

Greater Pottstown Area Children have cancer rates almost 100% higher than the remainder of the Tri County Area and PA, and 92.5 % higher than the national average.


Children Are The Barometers Of Our Society


......

So what is the difference between our children and those who live in other parts of the county, the state, and the nation?

Greater Pottstown Area children face a “CHEMICAL PLAGUE”. They are overexposed to massive cancer causing chemicals emitted into the air they breathe 24 hours a day, every day, close to their homes, schools, athletic fields, and parks. The TOXIC TRIANGLE is the MAJOR DIFFERENCE!

These shocking childhood cancer statistics demonstrate the need for immediate action to reduce and/or eliminate cancer risks for Greater Pottstown Area children.

Montgomery County - Rising Death Rates


Childhood (age 1-14) Cancer Death Rate Rose 71% from 1980s to 1990s Childhood cancer deaths are down in surrounding counties, state, & nation
Asthma (all ages) Death Rate Rose 33% from 1980s to 1990s

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease control (CDC)
For more information on these statistics contact Joseph Mangano (718) 857-9825


Montgomery County - Rising Cancer Incidence
1985-1986 to 1996-97 - largest increases in newly-diagnosed cases


Prostate +132%
Thyroid +128%
Kidney + 96%
Multiple Myeloma + 91%
Melanoma (Skin) + 72%
Hodgkin's Disease + 67%
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma + 61%
Breast + 61%
Pancreas + 54%
Leukemia + 48%


Source: Pennsylvania State Cancer Registry
For more information on these statistics contact Joseph Mangano (718) 857-9825


People In Montgomery County Need Toxic Release Reductions
Over 670,000 people in Montgomery County face a cancer risk more than 100 times the goal set by the Clean Air Act. (Environmental Defense Scorecard)

More to read at the website
and plenty more studies available..just Google

I'm sure that I can find thousands of articles just like this
and that
You can find just as many supporting your point of view

However, I choose not to wait around with my head in the sand until one or the other is proven

OK I'm done for now
Just thought I'd put something out there to support my point of view

Thanks Brian for opening this discussion

i found this which from the department of health of pennsylvania which says other that cancer rates in the pottstown area are no different than the pennsylvania average

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... C5ZSjqFgjw (its a PDF)

StillHere

satansbed wrote:

i found this which from the department of health of pennsylvania which says other that cancer rates in the pottstown area are no different than the pennsylvania average

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... C5ZSjqFgjw (its a PDF)

While the quoted article is based on a study regarding the local landfill...and it goes on to name other possible causes of the increase in cancer rates in the area....

the following excerpts from your article seem to support my findings and my opinion as well

when reading this, i do not find Pottstown area cancer rates to be anywhere near the same rate as the state in general....i think we're reading the same article in two different ways

The overall incidence rate or cancer risk in the area was the same as
Pennsylvania (SIR=0.98). The ratio for several types was larger than 1.00.These include
stomach, pancreas, malignant-melanoma of the skin, cervix, kidney, brain/nervous system,
thyroid, Hodgkin’s disease, and leukemia. Ratios were sufficiently large for pancreas, malignant
melanoma, cervix, thyroid and leukemia to consider each statistically significant. Several ratios
were less than 1.0, however, breast cancer was the only one found to be statistically significant.

Table 3 shows major types diagnosed in this age group. There were fifty-four (54) new primary
cancers reported during the eighteen-year period. These included leukemia (14), brain-nervous
system (9), Hodgkin’s disease (2), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (4), kidney – renal pelvis (8), and
thyroid cancer (1). These percentages are based on very few cases making comparisons to the
state figures difficult.

Standardized Incidence Ratios – Children
While the crude cancer incidence rate is about 40 times greater in adults compared to children
(620 per 100,00 versus 15.4 per 100,000), children are more susceptible to several specific
types.8 These include acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), certain lymphomas including Burkitt’s
lymphoma, Wilm’s tumor of the kidney, connective tissue cancers, and bone cancer. To
determine if there is a pediatric cancer problem in this area, the types and risks were compared to
children statewide. Table 4 shows incidence ratios, based on statewide age-specific rates to
calculate the expected numbers. The incidence rate for “All Cancers” appeared to be 35 percent greater than the state (SIR=1.35), and Wilm’s tumor was over four times greater (SIR=4.32)

.....This prevented the calculation of site-specific rates. Rates for All Cancers were presented
only, and precluded any discussion of individual types of cancer.
The types of cancer, their relative frequencies, and incidence rates or risks in the community
have been described. When compared to the state, the distribution of cancers was not different,
and the overall incidence rate was the same as Pennsylvania (SIR=0.98), though some individual
types exceeded the state’s rate. These included pancreatic cancer, malignant melanoma of the
skin, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer and leukemia. The PADOH looked at twenty-two (22)
cancer types, the Montgomery County Health Department the major types. Though the
observation periods were different (10 versus 18 years), the findings are similar. Higher cervical
cancer and leukemia rates were observed in the PADOH and MCHD studies. In both, the
cervical cancer rates appear to be two- to three-times larger in the Pottstown area, and leukemia
rates between 30 and 100 percent higher than the comparison areas. The rate for All Cancers was
not different from the tri-county area (1985-1994) or Pennsylvania (1985 - 2002). But unlike the
MCHD study, lung cancer rates were not elevated.

respectfully, jo

StillHere

Brian, I apologize for the disagreement within your post when it was meant as a concerned remembrance for those affected by Fukishima.

its a difficult subject

I too stand with you and everyone else in my sadness and sorrow for the people of Japan :(

Kel Varnsen

unsung wrote:

An I scared about nuclear? No.

If you are saying Limerick (is that the station?) has caused cancer rates to soar out of control like Chernobyl (even that area is returning to pre accident levels) I would have to see the study.

However I believe I remember seeing a study about estimated life expectancy reduction due to certain environmental issues and being an employee in the industry reduces your life by about a week. I assure you I get much higher radiation dose than probably everyone else on this forum, and I'm not worried in the least bit.

Do you smoke by chance?

Yea I sort of feel the same way about nuclear power. Sure it was a huge tragedy what happened in Japan, but to me that shows that nuclear power can be relatively safe. I mean considering those plants were hit with a giant earth quake and then right after that a giant tsunami you would think the damage could have been way worse. I mean based on some quick reasearch, no one died in those plants, other than due to the acutal earthquake or tsunami. How many people die each year in coal mine accidents?

Speaking of which if I had to make the choice, I would way rather live next to a nuclear plant, than next to a coal fired plant or near the bottom of a hydro-electric dam.

haffajappa

Kel Varnsen wrote:

unsung wrote:

An I scared about nuclear? No.

If you are saying Limerick (is that the station?) has caused cancer rates to soar out of control like Chernobyl (even that area is returning to pre accident levels) I would have to see the study.

However I believe I remember seeing a study about estimated life expectancy reduction due to certain environmental issues and being an employee in the industry reduces your life by about a week. I assure you I get much higher radiation dose than probably everyone else on this forum, and I'm not worried in the least bit.

Do you smoke by chance?

Yea I sort of feel the same way about nuclear power. Sure it was a huge tragedy what happened in Japan, but to me that shows that nuclear power can be relatively safe. I mean considering those plants were hit with a giant earth quake and then right after that a giant tsunami you would think the damage could have been way worse. I mean based on some quick reasearch, no one died in those plants, other than due to the acutal earthquake or tsunami. How many people die each year in coal mine accidents?

Speaking of which if I had to make the choice, I would way rather live next to a nuclear plant, than next to a coal fired plant or near the bottom of a hydro-electric dam.

Not sure about Fukushima but many buildings in Japan are built to withstand Earthquakes - at least, better equipped than most places. Anyways, the real issue was not the Earthquake, it was the Tsunami - they're built for Tsunami's in that area but not to the extent the March earthquake caused. Err, what I'm trying to say is, the damage might have been worse if the plant was in a country not prone to earthquakes, or any other unforeseen natural disaster for that matter.

I guess the issue is, no matter how 'small' the risk is of something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi happening, if something does it can have the potential to be catastrophic.

Kel Varnsen

haffajappa wrote:

I guess the issue is, no matter how 'small' the risk is of something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi happening, if something does it can have the potential to be catastrophic.

You could say that about most large scale methods of power generation though. I mean if Hoover Dam were to fail the damage would also be catastrophic, so why don't we get rid of all hydro-electric dams? Sure the failure of a coal fired plant might not be catastrophic but the pollution and acid rain it causes, plus the resparitory diseases (and coal miners deaths) seems like a higher price to pay for power, than the small chance of a nuclear plant failing leading to a increased (but still small) chance of people getting cancer.

haffajappa

Kel Varnsen wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

I guess the issue is, no matter how 'small' the risk is of something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi happening, if something does it can have the potential to be catastrophic.

You could say that about most large scale methods of power generation though. I mean if Hoover Dam were to fail the damage would also be catastrophic, so why don't we get rid of all hydro-electric dams? Sure the failure of a coal fired plant might not be catastrophic but the pollution and acid rain it causes, plus the resparitory diseases (and coal miners deaths) seems like a higher price to pay for power, than the small chance of a nuclear plant failing leading to a increased (but still small) chance of people getting cancer.

I suppose.

Pepe Silvia

Kel Varnsen wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

I guess the issue is, no matter how 'small' the risk is of something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi happening, if something does it can have the potential to be catastrophic.

You could say that about most large scale methods of power generation though. I mean if Hoover Dam were to fail the damage would also be catastrophic, so why don't we get rid of all hydro-electric dams? Sure the failure of a coal fired plant might not be catastrophic but the pollution and acid rain it causes, plus the resparitory diseases (and coal miners deaths) seems like a higher price to pay for power, than the small chance of a nuclear plant failing leading to a increased (but still small) chance of people getting cancer.

or say if a nuclear power plant testified under oath that their facility had NO underground pipes then a year or so later the water table for that town becomes poisoned by the nuclear power plant taking them months to find where the leak is coming from only to find it came from.....underground pipes that were leaking....but it wasn't their fault, they must have just misunderstood the question while under oath......kinda like what happened with the yankee nuclear power plant

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=123515&p=2796042&hilit=yankee+yankee+nuclear#p2796042

Pepe Silvia

and if you want to build new nuclear power plants, use your own money or find your own investors. stop relying on the tax payers to build them then take decades, if ever, to repay. i'd much rather that money go towards alternatives that don't have toxic waste with no permanent place to store it lasting thousands and thousands of years.

if the nuclear power industry is so great they should be able to come up with the funds themselves and quit relying on corporate welfare.

and still, no supporters have answered where will we store the waste since the department of energy has stated yucca mountain can NOT be a permanent location

brianlux

Pepe Silvia wrote:

and still, no supporters have answered where will we store the waste since the department of energy has stated yucca mountain can NOT be a permanent location

That's because there is no place, Pepe. Fukushima is evidence that we still don't know how to handle this sort of thing safely. I live somewhat down wind from the decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear power plant. This plant still houses spent fuel rods. In the event of an explosion or major earthquake, the radioactivity from this plant could blow our way. What a way to go, huh?

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/ra ... id=1946657

Leyna Minai

brianlux wrote:

What is your point and why have you posted it here? I put up this thread with the intent of honoring those who suffered and still suffered a great tragedy and as a reminder that there are great dangers involved with nuclear power.

All in all Brian, Thank you very much for remembering what happened in Japan, I can't believe it's already been a year.